Skip to main content
12:00 pm
just kidding. [laughter] ..
12:01 pm
among his and his organizations many valuable contributions to public knowledge, were the anthony weiner tweets which i hate to bring up so soon after our meal. the acorn 2009 undercover videos that exposed the supposed nonprofit outfit as a shill for democrats and this year the planned parenthood videos which out ad counselor for telling a young woman having a sex selection abortion was no problem. andrew was a blogger, commentator on various programs and a wonderful troublemaker for those who deserve to be in trouble. [applause] he founded breitbart.com and five other web sites. breitbart tv, big hollywood, big government, big journalism, and big peace, p, e, a, c, e.
12:02 pm
he became a big player what is come to be called the new media including work as editor on "the drudge report" website and yes the "huffington post". bull buckley didn't dwell in the past but he believed we should and could learn from it. he was fascinated by the rise of the new media and encouraged conservatives to become involved in it as he had in the old media. he didn't live to see it come to full fruition and andrew left us too soon for him to become a greater influence than he already has. a tribute to him that his web sites and work endure. it is my pleasure as the winner of last year's william f. buckley, jr., award to present this year's award posthumously to andrew breitbart. may he rest in peace. [applause] may he rest in peace and may his legacy live on.
12:03 pm
accepting the award is oars son dean, susie's father and with him is alley mills dean. ♪ . >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you. thank you. you may remember me. i formally went on the screen, under the name of irene dunne. at my age i have some from time to time started thinking about the end of things and it has occurred to me when my time does come i hope to go the way my dear old grand father did, quietly in his sleep, not
12:04 pm
screaming like the passengers in his car. [laughter] andrew made me laugh more than anybody i have ever met. we all loved andrew and andrew loved us. my wife, ali mills, was, loved so much by andrew and he said, i never dreamed that i would be in the same family with the mother from ""the wonder years"". he was so full of heart. the think i love most about andrew in terms his public persona how people on the left hated him until they met him and they started loving him. the "new yorker", sent a woman out to l.a. where we all live to do a piece on him.
12:05 pm
they did a long piece. she spent 10 days. brought the woman over to our house to meet us. i thought they would do a hatchet job. they did a love letter. she loved him. she couldn't say bad things about him. "new york times" wrote two major pieces about him in the last year of his life and they were both love letters because the reporters spent time with him. that is the way it was with andrew. larry solov, his best friend from earliest child hood and formed the breitbart organization with andrew who is here tonight, loved andrew. we all loved andrew and my daughter, susie, wanted so much to be able to come here tonight and finally, it, it isn't time yet. she is still so in despair with grief and to be surrounded by so many people who loved him would have overwhelm her. anyway, i'm so happy to accept this on behalf of andrew and suzie and, ply
12:06 pm
four grandchildren that he presented me with. the youngest of whom is named william. william buckley breitbart. [applause] thank you. ♪ . >> not screaming. like the other people in his car. ah. there are a lot of people in this room who know from first-hand experience that videotape can be a very, very dangerous thing. you never really know what's
12:07 pm
going to happen. ask mitt romney. you never really know what's going to happen when someone makes off with a videotape of you especially when people get it into the edit room and you lose control over it. which is what happens every night with republicans and the news media. and as a demonstration of what i mean by that a short time ago mrc president brent brozell, big his rick blaine hum if i bogart jacket on tonight, was asked to videotape a message to mrc supporters about the value of mrc's extraordinary and superb internship program. it really is a great internship program. being the nice guy that he is, gruff exterior, he cooperated. little did know that he was being set up by his own
12:08 pm
interns. and this is what they have done. ♪ . >> hi, my name is brent brozell. i'm the founder and president of the media research center. at the mrc we recognize the importance of equiping young conservatives with the skills, tools and knowledge that they need to help shape and influence the conservative movement for decades to come. that's why for more than 20 years the mrc's youth education and intern program has offered our nation's most promising conservative students an intensive, on the job education in news analysis, reporting, marketing, and fund-raising. unlike the typical washington, d.c. internship experience, mrc interns play a meaningful and integral role helping to advance both the miss of the mrc and the
12:09 pm
conservative cause. upon joining the mrc, following a highly competitive selection process, interns are emersed in the strategies and best practices of journalism, marketing, filming, and fund-raising. many mrc interns go on to successful full-time careers with the mrc, where they continue to grow professionally. many others join other prominent conservative organizations or political campaigns, leveraging their mrc experience to help advance conservatism in a variety of unique ways. i'm proud of the great work mrc interns have done over the years and continue to do on behalf of the conservative cause. mrc interns make a real impact across every mrc department. they are truly part of the mrc family. ♪ . [applause]
12:10 pm
>> there was another video made a number of years ago about the clinton white house's internship program. [laughter] you can find it on the internet. by we're not going to play it here. and that tape is a good introduction to our next segment, the funnies. now, i know that, it is chris matthews, it is bob franken, all they can't help but be funny. they're not intentionally funny of course. chris matthews were not employed by msnbc, dnc, i expect he would be a person muttering in a bus stop about racism. eyeing little girls with bad intent. and our presenter for this segment is, i believe an established star in the conservative movement and his star continues to rise.
12:11 pm
it is a pleasure to have him with us tonight. he is a senior writer at "the weekly standard", the author of two "new york times" best-sellers, cheney, the untold story of america's most powerful and controversial vice president. as well as, the connection, how all died's collaboration with saddam hussein has endangered america. he's currently working on his third book, entitled, endless, how i learned how to write "new york times" best-sellers with the longest titles in the history of journalism. his work appeared in countless publications around the country. he has been a commentator on cnn, "the mclaughlin group". msnbc, everybody's got to start somewhere, cnbc and c-span. now you see him regularly, including the pretty much every night at 6:00 p.m. on the bret baier show on the
12:12 pm
fox news channel which is what we call, real television. and to take us through our next segment, it is a pleasure to introduce a good friend of the media research center. mr. stephen hayes. [applause] ♪ . >> good evening, everyone. how are we doing? i have the easiest job here all night. i get to introduce the funnies. i want to say, as chris mentioned i'm now doing a lot of work for the fox news channel. i'm thrilled with my affiliation with fox. fair and balanced. [applause] couldn't think of a better show to be on regularly than bret baier's "special report", which i still think is the best news program on television. [applause] and, it's interesting because when i meet people i think, sometimes people think of me as a broadcast
12:13 pm
guy because they see me on fox but at heart i'm still a print journalist. i sort of grew up as a print journalist. i work for "the weekly standard." i consider that my sort of real job. i'm moonlighting at fox. i hope to be moonlighting at fox for many years. but i'm a print journalist at heart and what is interesting about tonight, what's interesting about the program braent put together we obviously feature so much in the way of broadcast journalism. taking shots at so many journal is. there are so many more mean to be shot at. i mean that not for i canly, please. -- metaphorically, please. i want to share with you a couple of examples of bias, idiocy, in print journalism. because i didn't want you to think that print journalists are smarter than broadcast
12:14 pm
journalists even though that's the reputation. so i compiled a list of real headlines. it is perform important for me to emphasize sizes, these are actual headlines that ran in real newspapers across the country. i was going to read a few. the first one. federal agents raid gun shop, find weapons. [laughter] one-armed man applauds the kindness of strangers. [laughter] statistics show teen pregnancy dropping off significantly after 25. [laughter] did i mention that these are real headlines? this is not made up. tight end returns after colon surgery. [laughter] oh, come on. if we're giving an obama space gasm award i can do a
12:15 pm
tight end jeek. this is one my favorites, one "los angeles times" story involved a councilwoman, named laura chick, who was unhappy as what she saw gender based incentive from her colleagues. "the los angeles times" headline was quote, chick accuses some of her male colleagues of sexism. [laughter] homicide victims rarely talk to police. [laughing] totally serious. i'm totally serious. hispanics ace spanish test. [laughter] and the last one, midget sues grocer, cites belittling remarks. [laughter] all those are real. so for some of you who have attended this event as i have over the years our annual funniest video segment is truly unique and
12:16 pm
is often the highlight. normally it has nothing to do with bias. sometimes nothing to do even with politics. it shows we're basically shameless enough to do anything at all we can to amuse you. so just plain funny stuff we found while trolling the airwaves. some of it is gaffs that we've caught. sometimes it is other pieces we blatantly steal with full credit of course. but before offering the best funniest videos of 2012, we want to show you the best of the best over the years. trust me, this video could go on for an hour and you would love it all but we just don't have the time for it. so the first three videos could fall under the category, why live television is deadly. and i don't mean that literally, to quote joe biden. you never really know what's going to happen when the camera's live and there is
12:17 pm
not a damn thing you can do about it. in these three cases reporters are desperately to promote one story when another one called reality intervenes. >> america broke records tuesday in voter participation and our friends at cnn were on the scene live to report the story at places where people stood in line to cast their ballots. >> people have been waiting patiently for quite some time. hundreds of people were standing in this line earlier this morning. in fact, polling place opened at 6:00 and some folks were waiting in line two hours before that at 4:00 a.m. how long have you been waiting? >> five minutes. [laughter] >> severe flooding here in the northeast as more rhine continues to fall today. nbc's michelle kaczynski, i guess is in the canoe in wayne, new jersey. michelle, good morning to you. >> good morning. obviously we're getting a nice break from the rain but not the flooding.
12:18 pm
this is essentially now a part of the passaic river in this neighborhood. it rushed in yesterday through the streets. and it is really tough to control a canoe or boat when you're out in it katie. >> in michelle, is there severe drop-off between the foreground. we saw the guys a second ago. are these guys holy men? talk to me about morale. woe heard so much about the insurgent attacks. so much uncertainty when you folks will get to go emhad. how would you describe morale? >> my unit morale is pretty good, pretty good. every day it is we go out and do our missions. people are ready to execute their missions and they're pretty excited to be here. >> how much does that uncertainty knowing how long you're going to be here impact morale. >> morale is always high. soldiers know they have a mission and like taking on new objectives and taking on new challenges and now they're motivated ready to go. >> don't get me wrong i
12:19 pm
think you guys are telling me the truth but there might be a lot of people at home how that could be possible with the conditions you're facing and insurgent attacks you're facing. what would you say to those people that are doubtful morale can be high. >> if sir if i got my news from the newspapers i would also be pretty depressed as well. [cheers and applause] >> see. as good as advertised. the next one comes from "the tonight show" and it is a spoof of bill clinton. >> hi, president clinton. welcome to news for kids. it's only september and christmas is already on my mind. are you excited too? >> there's a reason that it's on people's minds because there has been a serious disinformation campaign to create that impression. >> what do you mean? don't you like santa? >> i worked hard to try to
12:20 pm
kill him. you i authorized -- >> you tried to kill santa? >> we've contracted with people to kill him. i got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. [applause] >> this is highlight from last year's show which became an instant hit with the audience. sit back and enjoy, dragnet's jack webb take barack obama to the cleaners. >> if we don't pass it, here's the guaranty. that the people who are watching tonight, your premiums will go up, your employers will load up more cost on you. potentially they will drop your coverage because they can't afford increase of 25 to 30% of providing cost of health care to employees each and every year and the federal government will go bankrupt. >> you really believe that don't you? you're really an enigma to
12:21 pm
me. you appear moderately educated man. you ice highly trained intellect not the way those who taught you intended way you should but use it as highly sophisticated weapon, don't you? you have finest university teaches in the world. how do you put it to us? common debt veriment to man. for disintegration of society that made it possible for you and pity you're believed in by the power of young with highly intelligence you can move mountains. >> what about my family's freedom and way of living? you don't concern about that. you don't want your warped and distorted sensibilities to interfear with your way of life. >> you're boiling over with energy. you want to change thing. so you look around. see a lot of things that need changing. people kill each other and they shouldn't. people are you hungry and she shouldn't be. people are cold and they're illiterate. they need shelter, they need books. the world needs changing. well it does need changing but if you're going to live
12:22 pm
with theries of us need to learn to play the game by the rules. [applause] >> finally we have a truncated clip of our favorite, "the daily show"'s report on a leftest protester in olympia, washington, who chained himself to a building in protest but it was the wrong building. >> meet jody mason, of olympia, washington. a man driven to protest. >> the bush administration gave the ultimatum to saddam hussein to leave iraq. i got ready and i got a chain and some locks and, i went to commit an act of civil disobedience by locking myself to a door. >> he meant to chain himself here, to this u.s. department of energy substation. but instead he ended up here, chained to the side door of a nonprofit rural aid
12:23 pm
organization. he got the wrong building but at least he had the right message. your sign said reduce deficits and you thoughted no blood for oil. and you were chained to a rural health organization. what's your message? >> well, -- >> so wrong building, unclear message, but at least jody reached the people. >> how long before someone noticed you? >> 18 hours. [laughter] >> why do you think people ignored you? >> i think people don't like to think about the troubles in the international spectrum right now. >> not because you were below sidewalk level? jody brought me to the place where, for some reason, no one saw him. you were chained where? >> just to this door handle here. >> okay. and was this sign here when you -- >> actually it was. >> did you read this sign? >> after i locked to the
12:24 pm
door handle. >> yes, after he locked to the door handle. but every good protester has a contingency plan. >> when you found out you were in the wrong place you just unlocked yourself and moved, right? >> no. because i didn't have the key. i, went to the demonstration -- >> forgot it? left it somewhere? >> i left it in the car way was using. >> in the car probably next to the fish ticket. then miraculously, 18 hours later, office worker larry clark stumbled upon jody and set him straight. you told him he was at the wrong building. what did he say? >> basically, oh. >> oh? >> oh. >> he just said oh. yes, jody mason stands as an inspiration to us all. are you the rosa parks of chaining yourself to the
12:25 pm
wrong building? >> i'm sorry, i don't know who rosa parks is. [laughter] >> in the end, jody feels wiser and he has got big plans for next time. >> if i was going to do it again, i might actually try to, try to research and find a building that is actually owned by the federal government. [laughter] >> good idea. so those were good and 2012 is no different. it's another treasure trove and we offer you several of the best tonight. the first comes courtesy of nbc's "saturday night live", which proves from time to time it really is an equal opportunity offender. i wonder if al sharpton laughed, actually wonder if al sharpton knows how to laugh, when he saw this perfect parody of his mean --
12:26 pm
msnbc of his performance as an msnbc host which of course i have never seen since he is on opposite "special report" and nobody else has either. somehow i think it is doubtful. this clip ran on may 19th. roll tape. [applause] >> four years since the financial meltdown and wall street still has a gambling problem. the problem is, they're gambling with our money. let's talk about it on politics, next. ♪ . i'm al sharpton. excuse me. let us talk about, talk about wall street. this week the country's biggest bank, chip morgan, announced they lost $3 billion. here to explain about it is colin mceny, head of global finance for jp morgan in
12:27 pm
lond. >> hi, reverend, it is actually jpmorgan. >> okay. you can call me, a, l, sharpton. >> unfortunately we couldn't detect and mitigate the risk of our portfolios because of multiple disconnected risk silos run by third parties. [laughter] >> on to our ongoing segment here are the job where we focus where the jobs are at here in america. let's go to alaska to talk to peter who works at a seafood which is a salmon can thatry. do these sammon canaries have fins or wings? >> i work at a a salmon cannerry. [laughter] >> what kind of jobs are up there? >> we need fish cleaners. people who take out the bones and gut the fish. it is hard work and pays well and we have 12 positions open now. >> hold up. you have 12 good jobs taking
12:28 pm
the bones and feathers off saloman canaries? -- salmon. and republicans are talking about unemployment is so bad. i will take one of those jobs myself. how do i get up there? >> al, we're over 4,000 miles away. >> hey, i drive a 1991 buick riviera. i can fit six people in the back seat. we're all coming to get those jobs. >> wait, you're going to drive to alaska, to can fish? >> absolutely. when i'm not doing this show, all i do is play draw something and sample olive oil relaxers at the barber shop. peter, everyone. republicans are supporting millionaires on wall street talking about doom and gloom in the job market. like they're smoking a mirror. excuse me. it is like they're putting smoke into a mirror because, in the mirror our country, he has got emphysema.
12:29 pm
that is bad. i'll talk to you. [laughter] >> al sharpton, ladies and gentlemen. most americans celebrated when we learned the news of osama bin laden's death. we celebrated in many different ways. i personally took a case of pabst blue ribbon to "the weekly standard" offices and we all had a beer. but no one expressed himself quite like the comedian martin short. shortly after the killing of osama bin laden, martin short took to the david letterman show, to sing his own personal tribute. ♪ . >> good buy al qaeda's rose. your beard never seemed to clean to me so i'm glad they washed you off before they dumped you into the sea ♪. ♪ in the afterlife, six dozen virgins, sure found it
12:30 pm
swell, so it must have burned your ass when you ended up in hell ♪. ♪ seems to me, you lived your life like a [bleep] in the wind, getting waxed in an attack in rural pakistan ♪. ♪ you reached lowest limits of human the race, would have shot you anywhere, how about in the face ♪. ♪ had a chance to shoot you anywhere. >> anywhere? >> so we shot you in the face. ♪ . [applause]
12:31 pm
>> so the next thing, in the script, says, i have a personal affinity for the following offerings because well, i'm in them. but i don't know what they are. so i don't yet know if i have a personal affinity for these things. if they're making fun of me, then i don't and i blame you, brent. but it has become a staple of "special report" with bret baier that we close with some snippet of video that we've caught somewhere in which we find or the producers find particularly humerus. humor rouse. they come from a double different directions. those on the set are often as amused as the public watching us. my name is stephen hayes and i approve of these clips. >> some political pundits complain about lack of fireworks during monday's republican debate. one late-night show illustrates the use of one word brought the candidates together. >> obamacare. >> obamacare.
12:32 pm
>> obamacare. >> obamacare. >> obamacare. >> obamacare. >> obamacare. >> obamacare. >> obamacare. >> obamacare. >> obamacare. >> obamacare. >> obamacare. >> obamacare. >> obamacare. >> obama. >> obamacare. >> obamacare. >> obamacare. >> obama. >> obama. >> obama. >> obama. >> obama. >> barack obama. >> obama. >> deep dish. >> we know the official campaign slogan for the president's re-election effort is simply one word, forward. but not everyone thought it was catchy enough. so the vice president has apparently been floating some alternatives. >> age change only comes through challenge. i'm more optimistic about this country than i ever have been. not because of baraken. he can't do it. forget about your [bleep]. forget about all of it.
12:33 pm
so why the hell don't you go home. i don't quite get this. i'm so ashamed. [laughter] >> vice president biden was fired up at the naacp speech today. his second stem winder in a week. obama supporters praised those speeches. now it appears one show uncovered a new tour biden's starting. >> this summer, don't miss your chance to see america's funniest number two. joe biden, vp of comedy. >> those walls are often thin. i wonder how the hell my parents did it. that is different story. >> every laugh. >> barak says, three-letter word, j, o, b, s, jobs. >> every gaffe. >> god rest her soul and, although she is, your mom is still alive. it was your dad passed.
12:34 pm
god bless her soul. >> the joe biden vp of comedy tour. it will have. p your pants laughing. >> wasn't us. thanks for inviting us into your home tonight. it is not that easy this time of year for reporters who get sent out to cover the winter weather. sometimes when covering the dangers of shreaders and cars on slick roads it is not just the cars that are a danger. >> we know it will not get any better. in fact it will probably get worse as long as this corridor is open. you saw the car go behind me. buses are coming through here. >> because of your reporting. thank you so much for ruining the fun. total complete killjoy. >> all right. >> -- decade and you ruined it. >> okay. all right. >> the official obama campaign slogan as we told you, is forward. one word, with a period at the end of it. apparently caused some angst
12:35 pm
inside the campaign but they're okay with it. with a few weeks left before the convention, one late-night show insists president obama and vice president biden are continuing to try out and search the best campaign slogan. >> no you can't, you shouldn't, don't even try. >> no, no, there is no jobs for you man. >> economy bad. it's all my fault. and i can't fix it. i'm betting on china. >> i'm in over my head. >> don't have enough money to pay the bank, honey. and we have to move. [laughter] >> you should vote for mr. romney. [laughter] >> apparently one show managed to get some behind-the-scenes video of the president. we told you last week about four lucky donors who won a campaign contest to have dinner with president obama. at least they thought they were lucky until the bill came. >> what happens. it was not a real fancy
12:36 pm
place. now watch what happens when the check comes. you see the check is put down. the president very slyly slides it. look how much the check is. $14 trillion! 14 trillion. then he sneaks out. then he sneaks out. >> thanks for inviting us into your home tonight. that is it for this "special report". [laughter] >> you could make it up but why bother? there it is. want to thank steve and just in case he has the urge to start drinking heavily we supplied him with a case of pbr back there on ice. that is how he celebrates. the annual mrc dishonors award has its winners chosen by a distinguished cross-section of the vast right-wing conspiracy department of media affairs.
12:37 pm
you may not have known that existed but it does. for our galas it always been a star-studded assembly and this year is no exception. this year we have, for 2012, 12 judges and it is my pleasure to introduce them to you. ♪ . ♪ .
12:38 pm
♪ >> all right. our third and final presenter this evening is a man who of course needs no introduction but he is going to get one anyway just in case. he's well-known in the conservative movement as both an intellectual heavy lifter and one of our best and cleverist humorists. more importantly he is a past presenter for our dishonors awards. he is the founding editor of nationalreview.online and is currently editor-at-large for nro. he is a visiting fellow at aei and a fox news contributor. how many jobs can one guy have? he is a national columnist, apparently more. number one "new york times" best-selling author. and more importantly to him,
12:39 pm
and i read directly from his bio here, he lives in washington, d.c. with his wife, jessica, his daughter, lucy, dog cosmo, cat, gracie, and a rotating lineup of fish and snails that do not seem to live long enough to warrant permanent status in his biography. ladies and gentlemen, i give you, mr. jonah goldberg. ♪ . >> first of all, with steve here and me here there are no goatees on "special report" tonight. this is a national emergency. first i want to start out with a complaint. i was told there was going to be a teleprompter. this was my one shot seeming
12:40 pm
presidential and now it's gone. [laughter] just, i am i am truly happy to be here. i'm happier than helen thomas at a hamas rally. [laughing] i'm happier than joe biden on lime jell-o day at the home. we should just get this thing started. something i've come to realize after many years as a political commentator and researcher of political history, close study of historical literature. maybe you've noticed this too. they don't like us. liberals in the press would rather have their fingernails pulled out. sky net is mad at me. liberals in the press would rather have their fingernails pulled out, ears punctured by unsharpened number two pencils. they would rather jell-o
12:41 pm
wrestle with debbie wasserman schultz. would rather have their favorite endangered species sown into their small intest teen than to acknowledge that conservatives are human beings. never mind offering us a nice, how are you doing? this is not a new phenomenon. the hostility began the moment we upty right-wingers proposed to champion bizarre ideas like liberty, personal responsibility, patriotism, virtue and of course, that most fiercesome of all four-letter words as joe biden might say, god. god. it's truly a love/hate relationship. they love to hate us. so, my favorite example of this was barry goldwater who in 1964 when he was running for president of the united states he went on vacation in europe and daniel schorr,
12:42 pm
"cbs evening news." foreign correspondent reported that barry goldwater's planned trip to europe was really a clandestine effort to meet up with neo-nazi elements in hitler's stomping ground in order to coordinate the fall campaign. goldwater actually sued and won which is one of the very few times we ever get liabled or slandered by the press and get punishment for it. since 1987 the media research center has been documenting these attacks and providing fodder for people like me and others to sort of turn the tables on them. the more, the trend has always been more you admire a leader, conservative leader like goldwater or reagan or clarence thomas or jesse helms or rush limbaugh the entire congressional class of 1994 or the tea party movement most of the united states, western civilization, basically anything that is on the side of truth, justice and the american way we get demonized for it and treated as if we're some sort of
12:43 pm
other worldly evil creatures. so tonight we give you some snippets down memory rain of the past 25 years. ♪ . >> i think liberalism lives, the notion that, that we don't have to stay where we are as a society. we have promises to keep and, it is liberalism, whether people like it or not, which is animated all the years of my life. what on earth did conservatism ever accomplish for our country? >> after eight years of what many saw as the reagan administration's benign neglect of the poor and studied indifference to civil rights, a lot of those who lived through this week in overton who seem toe
12:44 pm
think the best thing about george bush is he not ronald reagan. largely as a result of the policies and priorities of the reagan administration more people are becoming poor and staying poor in this country than anytime since world war ii. ♪ . >> if there is thinking left to ronald reagan's trickle down theory, done, it seems to be anxiety which seems to be trickng down through just about every segment of our society. ♪ . >> if you gave clarence thomas a little flower on his face you would think you had david duke talking. here is a man who, is against everything that has lifted the level of life of millions of blacks. ♪ . >> i hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and dies like many black men do of heart disease. that is how i feel. he is absolutely reprehensible person. ♪ . >> you've called gingrich and his ilk, your words,
12:45 pm
trickle down terrorists who base their agenda on exclusion, and fear. do you think middle class americans are in need of protection from that group? ♪ . >> the new republican majority in congress took a big step today on its legislative agenda to demolish or damage government aid programs, many of them designed to help children and the poor. ♪ . >> the bombing in oklahoma city has focused renewed attention on the rhetoric that has been coming from the right and those who cater to angry white men. while no one is suggesting that right-wing radio jocks approve violence the extent which their approach fosters violence is being questioned by many observers. ♪ . >> i don't think i have any jesse helms defenders here, nina. >> not me. i think he ought to be worried about what is going on in the good lord's mind. if there is retributve justice he will get aids from transfusion or one of
12:46 pm
his grandchildren will get it. >> reminded me person ken starr reminds me all this time is heinrich himmler. including the glasses. ♪ . >> this advice, mr. bush. shut the hell up! "good night and good luck". ♪ . >> they have waved signs liking president obama to hitler and the devil. raised questions whether he was really born in this country. falsely accuse him of planning to set up death panels, decried his speech to students as indoctrination. called him everything from a fascist to a socialist to communist. add it all up and some prominent obama supporters say it paints the picture of a opposition driven in part by refusal to accept a black president. ♪ . >> the republicans lie! they want to see you dead!. they rather make money off
12:47 pm
your dead corpse. they like it when that woman has cancer and they don't have anything for her. ♪ . >> rush limbaugh is beginning to look more and more like mr. big. at some point somebody will jam a co2 pellet into his head and explode like a giant blimp. ♪ . >> i'm not getting used to the big screen thing. i feel like, you know, there should be a long line of chinese soldiers marching in front of me in front of an icbm or something. anyway, 2012 was no different. national leaders continue to embracing conservative values and reporters continue to the their character assassination campaigns for what they call, the news. we give you the finalists for the 2012, i want to read this, this needs a good --. damn those conservatives to hell award. thank you, thank you. our first nominee is an
12:48 pm
accomplished journalist, howard fineman. was formerly with "newsweek" until it was sold for one dollar. apparently they couldn't handle his salary after that. so i moved to the "huffington post" whose journal listic value is neighborhood of buck 75 to buck 80, with that level of capitalization they can handle his salary now. on july 23, on the july 23, "heart ball". same fine -- hard ball, fine man hit a trifecta insulting tea party, republican party all in one sound bite. >> he is playing to and has from the beginning of the campaign, played to the kind of nativist base of tea party. by nativist, i mean people who are in essence afraid of the world. the republican party is going to cripple itself beyond recognition if they don't quit being xenophobes.
12:49 pm
[laughter] >> no, damn you conservatives. no, damn you conservatives to hell award is complete unless it includes a head slap against rush limbaugh. usually some sort of snotty lecturer. you know the look. head shaking in disbelief. upper lip curled in disdain. the lower lip quivering in horror. the body in epileptic spasms. uncontrolled bowel movements incoherent commands you get from the --. i'm exaggerating a little bit. maybe they didn't curl their lips. on march 2, cnn's piers morgan, my guy, piers, cnn's piers morgan who is national audience could fit in the back seat of rush limbaugh's mercedes has, mounted his little high horse and delivered this pathetic little broadside no one heard because no one watches him except for the poor
12:50 pm
staffer at mrc hand handcuffed to radiator for his grievous since and punished for this zionment. >> limbaugh's disgusting comments are the work of an archaic old dinosaur living in a warped ugly swamp. thinks it is oak to degreat women for sports and ratings. it isn't. shame on you rush limbaugh. >> our final nominee for this august award is nbc's ann curry. on april 10, she conducted what nbc calls, i want to get this word right, an interview. her guest was paul ryan. listen as she prattles off a series of talking points from a very official sounding and therefore trustworthy impartial organization. unfortunately though it isn't. just another far left pro-obama outfit. listen as she demands paul ryan admit his budget will hurt poor people, that everyone will suffer, that as a matter of fact he
12:51 pm
doesn't even like poor people. paul ryan deserves the nobel peace prize for not beating her around the hid and neck with a semifrozen flounder. >> budget and policy priorities, you're smiling you know about this. >> i do. >> 62% of the savings in our budget would come from cutting programs for the poor. that between eight and 10 million people would be kicked off of food stamps. that you would cut medicare by 200 billion. medicare and other health programs by something like 770 billion. where is the empathy in this budget? do you acknowledge that poor people will suffer under this budget? >> no. >> that you have shown a lack of empathy to poor people in this budget? >> now of course, any one of these, of course any one of these champions of journalistic objectivity and intellectual nuance could have won tonight, damn you con conservatives to hell award.
12:52 pm
behind you stand another, thank you. behind them stand another dozen who could have qualifieded but for our limitations but the judges had to choose only one and choose they did. the winner of the 2012, damn you conservatives to hell award, goes to, a new car. no. goes to, the woman who believes paul ryan is some kind of underweight lex luthor with better hair out to destroy the world as we know it, nbc's ann curry. ♪ . >> where is the empathy in this budget? do you acknowledge that poor people will suffer? >> no. >> under this budget? >> no. >> that you have shown a lack of empathy to poor people in this budget? ♪ .
12:53 pm
>> i didn't know about the music. ann curry couldn't make it tonight. she is at a local or fannage telling the kids that paul ryan killed santa because they wouldn't eat their vegetables. accepting the damn you conservatives to hell award is a lady who knows full well when it is like to have the kitchen sink thrown at you. there is special vitriol for her. she is proi life. the if there is one person that drives liberal media batguano. crazy it is pro-lifer. founder of susan b. anthony list and as its president seen it grow to one.
12:54 pm
premier pro-life organizations in the country. her pac, susan b. anthony fund has been successful electing 100 members of the to congress. she is tireless defender of unborn. she deserves our nation's gratitude. the youngest of the youngest canned do it. we have to believe a merciful god will have them in heaven. this winner, marjorie dnnnenfelser. ♪ . >> you know what is really supercool is that this is perfect because ann and i are really tight. you know, marti, my husband says, i don't even know where you begin and ann ends. you're so the same person. but he kind of sad it under
12:55 pm
his breath. maybe more like couldn't really hear it, maybe more like endless or chatter was in there, i'm not sure. but ann and i spend a lot of time trying to figure out about, trying to figure out what's wrong with you guys and paul ryan, how we're really great, how we're kind and good and generous but, what is wrong with you people? it is kind of easy to figure out. we actually got together last night to talk about this. and first of all, we're women. that's easy. we're women. we're a part of the sisterhood. we get it. we absolutely understand what compassion means. we have this sisterhood, right? we have the feminist sisterhood. we have allies over at planned parenthood who really understand compassion very deeply and the biggest sister over there, the founder, really under stands compassion. she said, really innovative things, really compassionate people come up with innovative strategies about
12:56 pm
how to really help the poor and really innovative strategy that margaret sanger came up with said, let's eliminate them before they get to be a drag on all of us. that is innovative. that is pretty much the compassion we decided was where we're coming from. catholics, margaret sanger said are useless breeders. unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all. and you know, we have a big family. i bet there are a lot of big families here. but you know what? you guys are the problem. you're not living come -- compassionate lives. the most merciful a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it. i'm not kidding. you can't make that up. that is actually what she said. ann and i we figured out to be compassionate, there is a class of human beings that are pretty much human weeds. pretty much clear out that underbrush so everything's better for all of us and then they won't suffer. well, look, i am very
12:57 pm
thrilled, in all seriousness to accept this award on ann's behalf and actually to say from the bottom of my heart, brent brozell and what they have been doing for the past 25 years to truly expose what the heart of compassion truly is, in all seriousness. and that is, always been, pro-life cause has always been central to the tracking of the bias in the media and we thank them and with him and their staff and all of you there has been so much progress. thank you so much. [applause] ♪ . >> couldn't pay enough to see me dance.
12:58 pm
this is the a point of personal privilege. we're doing the barbra streisand political iq award for celebrity stupidity. barbra streisand, i have a mild obsession with barbra streisand. i'm not quite like following her around in a gray buick with my trunk lined with garbage cans or garbage bags or anything but it is not a healthy obsession. one. reasons "the l.a. times" picked me up as columnist, barbra streisand canceled her subscription to the "l.a. times" in protest. [applause] in my career there are very few higher water marks than that. so. now look, in all fairness some people say that conservatives shouldn't be such pains in the ass to hollywood liberals but the simple fact it is just the fastest route to their brains. indeed over the years on this somber occasion called, the dishonors, we've been honored to listen and ponder the great, great mysteries surrounding that amazing force of nature, the
12:59 pm
hollywood brain. the beauty is, lots of people think hollywood liberals are really, really dumb and too stupid to be spell checkers in an m and m factory. beautiful thing hollywood liberals speak and remove all doubt. don't believe me? we're going to examine the record of the past 25 years with some highlights. there is more words here. celebrities give speeches, i'm sorry. celebrities give speeches at lefty rallies all the time but what do they say? watch the compilation. you will understand why their comrades in the liberal news media always focus on the crowd shots. give you a quick sample . mike meyers talking about katrina in hollywood concert for hurricane relief, suddenly his partner, rapper kanye west, totally unprovoked says something not only out of left field, not even out of left field stands but slightly to the left of the satellite imaging device viewing the stadium from space. there's rosie o'donnell
1:00 pm
proving she did in fact graduate from black helicopter u, with a master's in skyscraper engineering. there is ted turner, god love him. he is here to and continues to prove once again he is a few fries short of a happy meal. . . and keep your hands off them.
1:01 pm
♪ >> the destruction of the spirit of the people in mississippi may have been the most tragic loss of all. george bush doesn't care about black people. >> if you believe in a conspiracy in the attack of 9/11? >> i believe it is the first time collier has melted steel. the physics of the world trade center building seven which collapsed on itself it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell. >> 8 degrees hotter but in 30 or 40 years basically none of the crops will grow, most of the people will die and the rest of us will be cannibals. >> this is and heating a black man in the white house this is racism straight up as nothing but a bunch of t bagging red necks. >> barack obama as a person is a
1:02 pm
fantastic individual, but barack obama has an idea marks and evolutionary flashpoint. >> for humanity. >> you've probably heard or read a democratic fund-raiser in los angeles over the weekend barbara streisand performed a rework of her some memories from the movie the way we were. ♪ a picture of the house we left behind. lovely democratic memories, the way we were ♪
1:03 pm
[laughter] >> please come again next time and in the meantime state-owned fer news, fair and balanced. >> just making me feel unsafe now. we are going to look at the finest from 2012. they are still there and unlike those clapping monkeys and battery commercials they are still spinning around making a lot of noise and calling up progress. the first offering for the 2012 barbra streisand political iq award comes from the actor morgan freeman. morgan freeman is a great actor and seems like a nice guy in the movies. he has had some fantastic roles
1:04 pm
and even though he always seems to play the exact same guy in the movies, the problem is in the movies he's not that guy. i wish that he could sort of beat that guy when they turn the cameras off. what is it about these actors because they memorize and deliver lines the are now geopolitical experts, too? on september 23rd of last year, our friend piers morgan was interviewing mr. friedman and asked him about the old standby, gop racism. when morgan freeman suddenly become an expert on the tea party -- and i will put money on that he's never even been within 100 miles of a tea party rally. >> has obama helped the process of in eradicating racism -- >> i think we made it worse.
1:05 pm
the tea parties who are controlling the party debated policy to do whatever it takes to see to it that obama only serves one term. but underlines that? screw the country we are going to do whatever we can to get this black man -- we are going to do whatever we can to get this black man out of here. >> it's not necessarily racist -- >> it is a racist thing. >> that was gordon from sesame street. >> by the way speaking of celebrities turning sour, what the hell happened to david letterman? i remember -- she knows. i remember the days he was actually like really, really funny. now he's like one of those guys who even though there's a dozen empty urinals he still walks
1:06 pm
right up to you and starts telling you all of their opinions and their kind of creepy and disturbing. ladies, take my word for it. okay. [laughter] but seriously, he's kind of turned into like the verbal equivalent of some one that sends an e-mail and all caps. isakson all caps. on may 15th, she was interviewing abc news anchor brian williams, note how visibly uncomfortable even williams becomes as letterman raises the antenna of his in the visible helmet and begins communicating with mars. >> the day after the 9/11 attacks the number-one priority in america is the we've got to get bin laden. we've got to get bin laden. some eight years go by and we still haven't gotten bin laden to read george w. bush said he doesn't think much about bin laden. in the interim we invaded afghanistan and invade iraq because cheney wanted to help out his buddies at brown and
1:07 pm
root and halliburton. and grab up all of the wheel. i think that they were worried about upsetting the saudi arabia royalty money. laughter kirsanow osama bin laden finally is gunned down by barack obama displaying great courage and intelligence. what more do you want to leave your country than that kind of courage and that kind of intelligence? [applause] >> our final offering tonight comes from hugo chavez's say the debate could favorite sycophant or as i like to call with his favorite busboy. if you are sean penn and you have something really asinine and you want to get out there, where do you go? that's right, piers morgan. mr. penn delivered one of the most asinine comments ever on
1:08 pm
television. can we call cnn national television any more? and even worse, she insisted that we know that this was -- ki insisted that we know that this is his original thought. he came up with. >> he has what i call the get the n-word out of the white house tea party. at the end of the day there is a big bubble coming out of their head saying can be just lynch him. >> he's so charming. how did you decide a winner? the winner of the 2012 barbara streisand political iq award for political goes to baby hugo, sean penn.
1:09 pm
♪ >> we have what i call the debt of the nword out of the white house. there is a bubble coming out of their head saying can we just lynch him. ♪ stat i'm sorry i'm drinking such an enormous amount of water. i smoked pot and have dry mouth. unfortunately sean penn couldn't be here tonight. we tried to convince them they are not shy of being clansman but he didn't believe us. as we have a thought.
1:10 pm
it is a list of alleged that the hollywood left is ground zero for the funding of liberal causes and candidates. it should tell us something that there is no ground zero special-interest for our side. it's just individuals devoted to preserving freedom and the american dream. they are our ground zero. there is one couple that has been generous to many causes and many leaders. all of us who've been beneficiaries share a deep sense of gratitude for their patriotism and philanthropy. but is so often is the case it is because of their generosity and patriotism and devotion to tradition that this couple has been repeatedly pilloried by the press. when foster and allin agreed to sponsor tonight's dinner they had no idea it was our intention to honor them. we do so now with great joy. please rise and thank you the conservative movement, foster and lynn freise. ♪
1:11 pm
>> it truly is disappointing sean penn couldn't be here. some people are concerned because i'm not known as the most humble guy so if he's able to the center of action that is an honor itself. and because of this human body i've decided to write a book. america's ten dynamic leaders of today and how well trained the other nine. i think -- perhaps i am so touched on often tear up when they played the star spangled banner. but tonight even the pledge of allegiance got me to see your
1:12 pm
son out there. let's give the soldiers a big round. [applause] >> it's also reminded me of a cute little story. we have this wal-mart store, and this creature they call them in and he says you're the best we've got. your courage and time coming you know where things are and you are so helpful but we need to talk to you because you've been late quite a bit lately. we see on your resume you had experience in the military. you are not late in the military, were you? he says i kind of was. what did they say to you? they would say something like would you like some coffee, admiral? [laughter] boston at last when you wear your cowboy hat and someone does something really terrific. you go a tip of the hat to that particular person or organization. i would like to say to but that
1:13 pm
to this organization for all of you for supporting the staff and for brent. [applause] and using the phrase that we hear on another station. i am glad that we have this organization for keeping them honest. >> and god bless you all. ♪ >> kind of miss that in some, huh? provided clarity, didn't it? little did we know when the wall came down we would have to fight them all over again back here.
1:14 pm
[cheering] it's amazing to me listening to the clips of barbra streisand and the rest. it's amazing how they've been able to air brush their own history in such an extraordinary way. it reminds me of men in black with that tool we have at the end that cleanses their memory. that's what democrats have done to the history of their own party. and it's appalling. it's amazing. maybe it is i'm on psychologically unhealthy. it's been a great evening. it's about to come to an end. the proceeding with music to follow and parties to follow. lots of debauchery. i have no doubt. and my final duty tonight is to introduce the man himself, brent bozell the final remarks all of y'all as they say a few miles from here.
1:15 pm
so without ado, ladies and gentlemen, brent bozell. ♪ >> thank you. thank you very much. >> to my son, to all of the sons and daughters fighting for us overseas. thank you press. you've been a wonderful mc. he is worth every penny.
1:16 pm
in truth, chris has been a longtime friend of this organization, and i do thank chris for everything he's done for the country and for the cause. we have lots of people to thank. quickly tonight we have lawyers in the back. that's a good thing. bonnie, jessica, tim and lisa fries and television, jimmy sullivan, melissa, cory parks, loren, in fact most everyone at the mrc participated in one form or another in the production of tonight's event. it being our 25th anniversary, ladies and gentlemen, ie exert executive privilege here. folks, these are the people responsible for it all. let me ask everyone at the mrc please, to stand and be recognized. [applause]
1:17 pm
>> i know how use correct everything and everything is right to the minute, but we would be remiss on this 21st anniversary of the staff and the board of directors, i would ask the rest of the board to come up. david, could you escort norm, also? you have had the dishonors portion and now we will have the portion. it's been a quarter of a century. think of it, a quarter of a century ago everything you heard on the 6:00 news was gospel. we believed it. it was the polls show the vast majority of americans believe that. one person, brent bozell had a mission and vision and decided
1:18 pm
that was not the case, was not accurate, that is not the way it was. and so, he started the media research center. a quarterly quarter of a century ago coming and we just want to speak for him so much. we have with us tonight to the board of directors, and i know the stuff joins with us and we want you to join with us also. we have actually three things we are going to do to honor brent and thank brent. first, dr. fine, since you didn't get to do the pledge is going to do the honors of unfeeling the plaque that will appear in the new headquarters for years to come. >> david martin had the
1:19 pm
wonderful idea of creating a plaque in tribute to your 25 years of and service. i would like to unveil it and read the description. [applause] >> the third president and founder and honored and grateful appreciation of your 25 years of courageous service and inspirational leader said that the mrc and your tireless sense of our aníbal rights as americans -- inalienable rights as americans. [applause] the second thing we would like
1:20 pm
to do is actually -- i was hoping i could talk about this because i was so excited when i saw the gift, but some very generous benefactors when they heard we were bombing debate dillinger konar brent spontaneous like this they said we want to help and we want to give something, but as humble as brent is we are not to say what it is, get the sun tan lotion out and rejoice for the next 25 years. >> to show you how on a scripted it was, we were supposed to have the voice of god to might call us up but you have the board of directors of the media research center. dr. fein, dr. mercer, ambassador
1:21 pm
windsor mike kaiser couldn't be with us tonight or harold simmons. but i want to do one last thing, and that is you should all have some campaign. -- champagne. i would ask you to rise and join with the board and the staff of the mrc to thank thank brent fos vision, his dedication, to the cup. this is someone that works as hard today as 25 years later when most of us with the coasting and he works harder today than when he first started this organization. so, to brent bozell, one last thing. he is our friend, and i am proud to call him my friend. cheers, brent bozell. [applause]
1:22 pm
select okay. anymore introductions before on about to finish? that so touching. and that's so heavy. let me speak for the people i have to thank. the presenters, lawrence ingraham, jonah goldberg, you have my deepest gratitude. thomas, you have my deepest respect. thank. you are such wonderful people for coming. finally, to the acceptors that we honor tonight, marjorie, tony perkins, foster and allin freiss come it's an honor. the contributions and sacrifices you have made and continue to make on behalf of the cause and the country and the debate could they are boundless and we are in your debt to get foster in your
1:23 pm
debt not really in your debt. i don't want to be in your debt, the would be very interesting. now, we have one more exercise tonight. and ladies and gentlemen, it is a biggie. what the hell is this? now is the time normally i ask all of our participants to come on the stage and join us for the quarter of the year, but this being our 26, we are going to do something somewhat different. why not go for the whole enchilada? i ask you why don't we, all of us very loudly and obnoxiously and in the most uncivilized manner possible to night shoes the worst reporter in the history of man? here's how it is going to work. we are going to present you with the four finalists for the worst
1:24 pm
reporter in the history of man, and to give you a flavor why each was nominated, by the way it was an arduous nomination process, brandt baker and i decided. we have prepared a compendium of some of the most outrageous statements they've made over the years. watch each collaged. do not throw things at the screen. we paid a damn fortune for them. watch these snippets quietly. smell the sweet nectar of distortion and deception. savor the character is as a nation. the one with the shamelessly sycophantic slobbering at the altar of liberalism. after those collections are concluded, then i will bring on the purchase of pence on the stage. and it is then that we will have a formal vote for the worst reporter in the history of man.
1:25 pm
that is when you can let it fly. a note to your greenup relatives, easy on the plates. okay. to the finalists. the first finalist for the worst reporter in the history of man is none other than dan what's the frequency rather. she is delighted us for decades with one inaccurate and utterly in ne report after another. he can now be found on the channel still lens testing goes doctored national guard documents are actually some how real. will the -- roll the tape.
1:26 pm
>> you are an expert. iran was officially a terrorist state how could you -- >> it is not just congress that is taking a short term to the right. capitol hill is making waves all over the country openly, politically partisan and sometimes racist radio. the new republican and majority took a step in its legislative agenda to demolish the government paid programs. many of them designed to help the children and the poor. a spec is there or is there not some concern of the public perception in some quarters, not all of them democratic? but this is in fact you have the twice popularly elected president of the united states
1:27 pm
and those so those that you mention in the republican party what he stands for have been unable to beat him at the polls that found another way to get him out of office. >> cbs news has exclusive information including documents that now shed new light on the president service record. 60 minutes has obtained a government documents that indicate mr. bush may have received preferential treatment in the guard after not fulfilling his commitments. >> tonight we have new documents and information on the president's military service and the first-ever interview with the man that says he pulled the strings to get young george w. bush in to the texas air national guard. >> are you sorry about that now? >> no. i think most people know by now that was correct. i want to ask you flat out to you think president clinton is
1:28 pm
an honest man? >> yes i think he's an honest man. >> i do. >> he lied to jim lehrer to his face. i think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things to respect he said, you know, it's a dumb thing that he is doing, but i've been a dumbass all my life. >> dan rather. all right. let it. that's what we want to be the that's what we want. our second finalist is arguably the most pretentious of the lot. a man who loses evidence, the kind of a grandiose self importance born from so many years struggling in the trenches, reading sports scores on a teleprompter. yes, bryant gumbel, you've
1:29 pm
always been a pompous ass, and if you're lucky tonight he will win a new trophy, the worst reporter in the history of man. roll the tape. >> largely as a result of the policy and priorities of the ronald reagan administration more people are becoming poorer and staying power in this country than any time since world war ii. >> wednesday morning the day when the budget picture focus seems gloomier than ever and it's time to pay for the cost of the reagan years. let's not debate his presidency for his passing as opposed to a man like reagan, nixon is highly regarded as a genuine statesman of the first-class mind. with him gone now who becomes the country's single statement? jimmy carter?
1:30 pm
>> i also like to talk about this week including the sexual harassment suit against the president. >> in light of the new welfare reform bill to you think the children need more prayer than ever before? as the republican party you know it is populated by the pat buchanan, jesse helms, james falk well, is there a right to be suspicious? >> someone says these are the world's greatest athletes despite it looks like a gop convention. >> you know what, in terms of my political views i hold them in check. i don't think that someone who watches is inclined to think that i am one way or another.
1:31 pm
>> okay. kind of gets you right here. for the third finalist, we decided we need somebody who is perky christian is not pretty. diane sawyer is not pretty. andrea mitchell might have been perky 30 or 40 or 50 years ago. [laughter] katie couric is perky. to be honest i didn't think that perky katie had a video i can assure you she is well qualified to serve as the worst reporter in the history of man and or
1:32 pm
woman. >> president carter you are now considered one of the world's foremost states the country is ever had. your reputation has been bolstered tremendously since you left office. how does that make you feel? >> do you think the american people are not ready for a woman who is as accomplished and career oriented as hillary clinton? you're speech at the 1992 republican national convention where you talked about a religious world is considered to be by very many a turnoff and exclusionary. do you regret -- >> that is the most famous address of the 20th century. he says modestly. >> good morning.
1:33 pm
the giver was an air had. >> in washington today lot of excitement on capitol hill. a movie star showed up to testify before congress. a movie star named al gore. are we surprised how intimately involved he is in the process? >> yes. i said mr. president, especially you because we understand each other and we know where we need to go. >> like to get cracking? steno, always cracking. >> you are so confident, mr. president, and so focused. is your confidence never shaken? do you ever wake up and say man this is hard? [laughter]
1:34 pm
>> we have one more. one more. our fourth and final contest and for the worst reporter in the history of man is going to be in b.c.'s brian williams -- nbc's brian williams, a man that has so little he has control when he interviews barack obama and he can also lose a level of anticonservative hardiness that would make bryant gumbel proud. she's such an awful journalist that he has accomplished the ultimate fifa. ladies and gentlemen, i plan for the good days of tom brokaw. roll the tape. ♪ >> as far as i will go describing bill clinton as perhaps the most intellectually and physically active person to have held the job in decades.
1:35 pm
and i've also said that americans were presidents by the thought we are getting a bargain on this guy because my god he is just always moving. his brain is moving. he hartley sleeps. >> is it fair to call him the best former president and moderate modern history and well i guess the last 200 years? >> which embraces all presidencies. i think absolutely. >> on the bus ride on this road to lebanon new hampshire i showed this week's "newsweek" hot off the press. how does this feel of all of the honor that has come your way, all of the publicity? last time we were together the did you copy of the "newsweek" and you held it with your hands on the cover. have you yet held this in your
1:36 pm
hands? one of the attacks busted through to you. what makes you the angriest at john mccain and what is being said about your husband that you want to shout from the mountaintops as not true? >> it is the most moving moment in my life to come across that bridge with this group of kids i have never met before. but we were all together. and that is the sense that you get here at the parade route where the president is going to review the parade. this sense of family coming together that is what people are looking for. devotee kept their emotions i would be lying to you, my friends. ♪ i was hoping to find you in a reflective mood on a cloudy day the first to speak to you coming of summer vacation. how does it recharge you? what do you think about?
1:37 pm
what do you see and what do you read about? how are you thinking about your job these days? there you have it, or four finalists. now, ladies and gentlemen, you were going to vote with everything at your disposal if it will make noise. the most noise wins. you are coming up so easy at that thing that you do. at this time, let me ask our participants to join me on the stage. please, give them one final round of applause. please, come on up. >> he's at the bar. where is he? okay, our presenters, laura ingraham, stephen hayes, jonah goldberg, come on up.
1:38 pm
the acceptors, marjorie, tony, foster and lynn friess, come on up. thank you. [applause] we have everyone. where the hell is clint. okay. chris is at the bar. we will go ahead without him. so, here is how it is going to go. i'm going to show you a picture on the big screen for the big house there and then you are going to vote with no. -- noise to read our judges will confirm and will be making the ultimate decision. so, are we ready? okay. number one, will it be deutsch fi dan -- goofy dan rather?
1:39 pm
[applause] okay. passion. the second nominee for the worst reporter in the history of man, will it be the air again -- arrogant bryant gumbel? [applause] all right. are we getting their? third, perky katie couric. [applause] [laughter]
1:40 pm
or the squirmy brian williams? [inaudible conversations] okay we have a runoff. we need a two-thirds of the best democratic national convention. [applause] our two finalists are dan rather and katie couric. we are going to do it again.
1:41 pm
just give me a sign. i can't see you. all right. we are going to do it again. do that yoga thing. all right. dan rather. [cheers and applause] >> katie couric. [cheers and applause] i wonder who won that one. well, katie couric clear hands down, unanimous.
1:42 pm
really, let's just forget about dan. can we just forget about dan? get him to the anchors boneyard or something? all right. katie couric, ladies and gentlemen. a very proud moment for her. unfortunately she couldn't be here. but we do have a videotape. she is the worst reporter in history of man or woman which is wonderful. ladies and gentlemen, thank you for coming tonight. we are not done quite yet.
1:43 pm
this part is over. the party is going to continue on the other side whether the uruguay to be performing at the bar is open in the back. thank you. god bless you and the board of directors. good night. [applause]
1:44 pm
look at what president obama did on the budget. nothing except borrowing and spending and as a result of the president's had occasion of leadership, as a result of seeing the most predictable economic crisis in the country's history and not fixing it, our credit rating was downgraded for the first time in our history. >> we laid out a 4 trillion-dollar debt reduction plan over the next ten years. 4 trillion. we've already passed a trillion of it. these guys vote against everything. no, no, i mean it. they don't like our plan. i get that. thursday congressman paul am i
1:45 pm
and vice president joe biden will face off in their only debate. abc news moderates from center college in danville kentucky and you can watch and engage in c-span with of the life preview starting 7 p.m. eastern followed by the debate at mind and your reactions, calls, e-mails and tweets. follow live coverage on c-span, c-span radio and online at c-span.org henry de sio the operating obama campaign and former deputy assistant to president obama spoke at california state university northridge he discussed how those lessons can be applied to this year's campaign. he also analyzed leadership, communication and the use of words in the presidential campaigns. this is about an hour and 15 minutes.
1:46 pm
>> i spent a lot of time in this area. this is a holiday place for me. my relatives actually lived in the hills, so every holiday for about two decades this is actually where we came every christmas and thanksgiving and so forth. so it is a great honor to be back here. tell you a little bit about myself. when i was in third grade we moved to california anyone know where the park is? lived in this small town in california, and i had about the same ten kids i went to school with every year until late trade and then when i got into high school we were in love valley and picked up a lot more classmates. so i grew up small i guess you'd say. we did a lot of direct activities, camping, fishing,
1:47 pm
hunting, played ball. and so, you know, he eventually i ended up at santa barbara and i think having grown up rural and kind of small i never imagined i could work in the white house or be part of a political campaign like the obama campaign. and so, i loved the chance to do talk like this because i hoped there was something in my story that might be inspiring to other people as you try to entrepreneur you're own success. washington, d.c. was on the other side of the world when i was growing up but i know the world as a little smaller now and a more accessible. but i think we can forget that we need to dream big dreams as my boss likes to tell me. we are going to talk a little bit today about my path to the white house and just quickly of
1:48 pm
i like to say everything i learned i learned on the campaign trail. there is always a winner and loser in the just like the business world it is highly competitive and with every campaign season there's innovation incubators if you will come and so i guess it is an entrepreneurial showcase and i say this because i think that when we see these ads we think the campaign is just like this big block, this big marketing machine that spits out the ads we see on television and the e-mails that flood are in box and the phone calls and so forth. but if you actually peeled back the curtain, you might find something a little bit different. you find a very complex, highly
1:49 pm
detailed operation. there's just a million things happening at once. there are things happening around the candidate. there are things happening around the headquarters operation and in the field offices. everything from, for example who is coming to stay with the candidate? where is the site that you should choose for that? how many people should come to the yvette? right down to the helium in the balloons, and then how we spend our money. you know, and how will we spend our money? it's like the candidate votes on a candidate and all of our expenses show up we have to follow with the government so it is a highly transparent government. and it is in this hothouse atmosphere under the media spotlight that leadership is on display for everyone to see.
1:50 pm
it's like a leadership reality show. imagine coming to work to a place where everything that your boss says, every decision that you make, every action that your organization takes is a variable for everyone to see. if you think about this way, the campaign is pretty amazing. and so, i like to use the 2008 campaign as a canvas and as a way to talk about similar things it's like using it as a laboratory to understand why they went and why they lose, what separates from the aspiring. and if you look at 2008, you have everything from how do you take this little known brand and
1:51 pm
the like the soup of politics which they have the clintons, a very long history to the decades of service. how do you manage a crisis. what happens when that crisis outside starts to shape the cost inside? how do you get control over the narrative that is the skating? they are when we look at 2008 and even of 2012. and so, some people get their lessons from the border and some people get them from, you know, the classroom and the playing field. some people get them from the battlefield. i get mine from the campaign trail for those that command the principles that drive for the organizational success. we are going to talk a little bit tonight about this and do a few things tonight. i guess i want to do three things tonight.
1:52 pm
first, i want you to love campaigns. we are going to talk about what is it like -- i will answer the question a lot of people last. secondly, i told a little bit of my story for the students try and sort of navigate your way to success. so maybe we can open up some questions about that and finally to go into questions and answers coming and i hope we can explore a little bit and talk a little bit about language and talk a little bit about my experience perhaps, talk about what the people are seeing and take some of those lessons away in our everyday lives. that is kind of the plan for tonight we will spend about 20 minutes before we get to the q&a so what is it like to work in sight of a campaign? first of all let me tell you i love answering this question in
1:53 pm
september. september is my favorite month. it's the time of the year when the weather is changing, you have football on your tv again and the trees are starting to change color certainly on the east coast where i am living now, and you have those ads. i am barack obama and i approve this message. im mitt romney and i approve this message. and the e-mail and phone call, the sound of democracy. so this is my time of year. and you know in september the temperature is starting to fall outside and they are starting to rise in sight. and so, we had it in 2007, we had it again in 2008. everything i am reading in the news right now looks like mitt romney is having it and i can tell you that the obama campaign should expect it, too because that is what is happening. i will go back and tell you a
1:54 pm
little about 2007. 2007 we were going about six months at this stage. we were six months into the campaign at this stage for years ago, and we were focused on all iowa. we believe we had to win iowa to have a shot at the nomination, and if we lost we were going to have some problems. there was a much narrower path to the nomination. so, everyone was focused on the states that it would also new hampshire, nevada, south carolina. but in september we were starting to work, things were starting to happen. we are starting to see things come together. making final tuneups from that race to about 12 weeks away. right around labor day the car you are going to drive right through the primary so we are making those last-minute adjustments moving the staff around and getting people in positions. it was in late september when
1:55 pm
the poll dropped. i'm going to say it was the same poll in cnn for a couple of months, but it showed hillary clinton i hit by something like 47 to 23% and it was a cnn poll she was winning by at least 20 points. and that just dropped in the campaign headquarters like a grenade. there was something that happened in that moment the pressure started to squeeze and i really wasn't ready for this to be honest. we felt the pressure. it's getting nervous when we start to see the national poll that shows you way behind and then starts to become questions about the strategy maybe we shouldn't be focused on iowa and maybe we should be focused and spending our money to get the candidate for the rest of the country to get them up. the pressure started to rise at that point, and incite people started getting nervous frankly. you start seeing the staff that
1:56 pm
for the first time they start to wonder i yellow gistel look like an opportunity and now it is a cliff. you don't know if you're going to lose your job, you start to things to that could think about things you were not thinking about before. so we had that early in 2007 and we will come back and talk about how we got through that. in 2008 that is another moment for us. if you remember 2008, and it's funny to think about four years ago. we only knew sarah palin for less than a month. our biggest higher, the most profile higher named joe biden was for about six weeks and we still didn't know joe the plumber. it's kind of funny to look back on that time. i remember three years ago coming into september we had a big convention, we had this amazing summer and a tour that
1:57 pm
went off flawlessly and we would worry about the vice president and now here we are rolling into this in september we have a convention that's a big and we feel like we have a momentum in the next day. mccann announcing sarah palin as the vice president and you can just feel something all of a sudden, and people can say with a lot about how ready she was but i will tell you in that moment sarah palin made a grand entrance onto the national stage and she blew through -- i often talk about that as the hurricane we have the republican convention. there were the to even to my mind. one was hurricane gustav and the had to cancel the first day of the convention and the other one there were some winds that blew want to the campaign trail and the head wind was just stiff for
1:58 pm
about 18 days. so john mccain cannot his convention in september with a three-point lead, and that stretched 86 or eight points in mid september and the alarm bell sounded. we started to hear about the strategy where we hadn't hit hard enough for to find him enough. people were worried we were not going to lose the chance of the majority of the senate because we decided we were going to lose some you are starting to feel all this pressure and then september 15th comes, and i think many of you remember that when delhi men's brothers collapsed on wall street and wall street followed, and john mccain is on the hook for the fundamentalist of the economy are strong or sound, i can't remember which. and all of a sudden things changed and calmed down on our side. you start to go deeper into september and things start to be
1:59 pm
unraveling. sarah palin gives a bad interview just about right around this time, and then last night i believe it was, four years ago was the first debate and the pressure on the campaign couldn't have been higher. but the pressure couldn't have been higher, and on top of that, senator mccain was doing this stance between washington, d.c. and the campaign trail and he had gone to washington for the bailout package and said that he wouldn't -- he wouldn't go to the the date unless there was a bailout package. in the level of all of this about john mccain is going to show up. so, that's september and mitt romney now has had a tough month. it's september. ..
2:00 pm
i'll go back to september again, september 2006. and my wife and i are sitting on the banks of the potomac in alexander, virginia, on the banks. my wife marrieded to a serial campaigner we have to go through this ritual to say, what are our goals for year? we run a campaign to get to them but never goes exactly as i woonlt. it makes her feel better and she plays along. we were on the banks ever
2:01 pm
potomac. i had a consulting practice i was happy with. i had balance in my life. my wife was working for public relations at a university. we thought we should have a family. i thought that meant more than me and the two dogs. i was okay with that i was for that. and then, and then, i said, well, i think i had been around the 2004 race. i think i have one more presidential election in me. i think if we're going to start a family i would like to get one more press in -- presidential in. she was okay with that. i liked two candidates i liked at the time. up with was al gore. i had asked around with people, and they said, they didn't see al gore getting in. that doesn't look like it was going to happen. the other one was john edwards. i liked john edwards at the time. and that didn't go, there was a little bit of back and forth going along with that. so that didn't seem to be
2:02 pm
developing. so didn't look like anything was going to happen. there was one other candidate i liked. it was this guy named barack obama. four years ago, 4 1/2 years ago, five years ago, people back in the fall of 2006 would say things like, he's never going to get elected. there is no way america would elect an african-american. you can't get elected with the name, barack hussein obama. these are all the things i heard. it actually didn't matter because i didn't nobody anybody in chicago. i didn't know anybody around the candidate. so it didn't look like anything was going to be happening. then december 26th, december 26, 2006, my wife and i were shopping, day after christmas. my wife and i were shopping in a barnes & noble up the road in san luis obispo, california. so my phone goes off. this is right out of "west wing", right? any of you watch "west wing"? oh, my telephone. someone wanting to find out if i'm interested in working
2:03 pm
in the barack obama campaign? i of course was. i was connected quickly with steve hill today brand. he became his deputy campaign manager. but at the time he was assessing people. i was in charge of voter contact essentially. i put on the table, perfect for the job, i said to steve, although steve never indicated back that i was considered for national campaign director. i said put it out there. steve here's the thing. we can take, we can make it people can download literature, customize it, bring it out to their neighbors and clubs whatever. we tested this product back in 2004 would mate it possible with a cell phone, internet connection and computer you could turn your kitchen table into a phone bank. you could turn your kitchen into a, like a staging area or mini campaign headquarters. i put it all on the line and i was like, i had idea
2:04 pm
probably not new. i had the idea and vendor i thought i could bring forward. i thought i did a great job, you know. i heard later that david plouffe, the campaign manager said, asked about me and steve said he had some interesting ideas. so i thought, that's good. it turns out that i think what steve meant was he had some interesting ideas. because i didn't hear anything from them for, for many, many weeks actually. i mean actually the campaign, the candidate was on tv. one night, one day i was watching it that evening, announcing his bid for president. this was around february, i think february 12th. if i remember right. and i watched it on tv and my phone had been long dead. so i thought, well, that's it, right? then suddenly the phone starts to ring again and things are starting to happen again. and people are talking to me and next thing i know i'm being asked to come to chicago to assess staff and to evaluate some of the
2:05 pm
operations and so i thought, well, this sound pretty good. they offered me a job, actually in management. i thought, well this is great. so, i said there is only one thing i have to do because there had been something that changed since september 26th. i have to go home and talk to my wife and make sure she's, this is a family affair after all. so i talked to her and we decided because my wife was now pregnant and we wanted to make sure everything was okay with the baby. i said if everything's okay, we'll go to the doctor on march 1st, if things are okay we'll do. march 1st, the next date, i remember, march 1st. we went to the doctor's office. the baby's heart was beating, everything was fine. we walk out of the doctor's office. we unwind the lease. give 30 days notice. tell my clients, they knew this was coming. jump on a plane. fly to chicago, sign the paperwork and start working. i went back and got my wife later. so they say that if you have
2:06 pm
a big life event that is supposed to put your health at risk, right? so in one day i let's see, i'm going to have a baby. moved, quit my job. going, to you know, fly to chicago. start a new house, start a new life. i was like a walking heart attack the day i walked in the door and all of this, i think everybody, by the way, brings in their own story that is very unique like this. so you all come in very enthusiastic but there is something going on in your life because you're also managing this sort of entrance into a situation like that. so let's talk a little bit about just a few lessons from the very early days and then we're going to go to questions. what, coming into chicago, right? setting up the campaign because i get this question a lot. how did you guys do it? it was so organized. you seemed so tight. it very disciplined operation. what is with the secret behind it? let me tell you what the
2:07 pm
early days of chicago was like. now, remember, march 1st, a few weeks away from the announcement, we still didn't have a headquarters yet. the candidate announced and we didn't have a headquarters. so it was probably about another month before we did. i was sandwiched in this room with a few other people. we were in a temporary, like temporary office with people buzzing around all the time. i couldn't keep track of all these new people. but what was also happening was we couldn't fit everybody in this office. there were people actually in hotel conference rooms. there were people in legal, like law firm conference rooms so they could get an internet connection. they donated space. people working at starbucks where they could get an internet connection. people working at their kitchen tables frankly around town. so all of a sudden right around april 1st we start moving into our headquarters, finally. this is six weeks away from the announcement, maybe longer. just this big space. bigger than this room. far bigger than this room.
2:08 pm
three or four times the size of this room. it wrapped around. a whole floor of a high-rise building in chicago. it was just, kind of remarkable because we didn't have everybody in yet. we were slowly bringing people in but literally we were still getting our servers up. we had telephones ringing. we had people trying to answer phone calls. we are e-mail coming in to our e-mail dress, right? we didn't have a system to receive e-mail in a real way you would want. we have money coming in but we didn't have budgets yet. we had constituency leaders calling our political department because they wanted to have time with the candidate. we had our fund-raisers. we had to raise money with this little-known barack obama brand, what was really a mismatch against hillary clinton. we're literally building the airplane in mid-flight. it was really this crazy time and i remember in those early days, i remember the candidate actually coming in through headquarters and walking through the back of
2:09 pm
the room. he had his white sox cap on and wearing black sweats and heading my way. i couldn't focus on him. all i was thinking it was a big desk farm over there with open computer boxes. how will we ever fill this space? it was white. all the walls were white just like this. sunlight coming through the windows and we had these white walls. we didn't have campaign signage and didn't have anything put on our walls yet. he was walking toward me and i remember this time. this was one of the last time i talked to him when he didn't have see vet service detail. i think his life changed in that moment. i think back how much my life changed that moment. i was at the time they ared to this blackberry, constantly a stream of things coming at me. that is sort of early -- i will tell you one more story about this first moment. michelle obama, i met michelle obama when she actually came to headquarters because she was disturbed about the white walls and so forth.
2:10 pm
so she actually had a party for the children of staff so that they could have pizza and they could do color, they redid obama art with like 5-year-olds and 8-year-olds. she got a whole bunch of like kid posters and we had them all over the headquarters until we got actual signage. the posters, the kids art stayed up for the whole campaign. it got layered and kind of got lost with signage as the campaign grew up. it was like michelle obama ball and hear about her dedication to kids and that is how i met her. this early period of the campaign i love talking about this time because it was, it was an electric time in the campaign. it was spirited, hopeful, innovative and, the migration to chicago was like a, there is like this testament to the lure and
2:11 pm
reward of entrepreneurship. just people leaving everything behind to pursue the unimaginable. and campaign headquarters became this gathering place for idealists, innovators, risk-takers, and, while it's true that, you know, i guess you could say that the young had less to risk and more to believe in, we had people coming off wall street. we had people leaving their law brook tests. we had people -- coming out of boardrooms to join the campaign it. was truly inspiring at this time and we had this truly energetic sort of mix of people. this is kind of funny. we were literally putting our work places together and feverishly get your workplace up and you're off and running but you need a computer and so there's only one guy who can put up the computer. a guy named sam. same is duty at thisfully working getting people plugged in and getting their phones going and whole thing.
2:12 pm
by the way we called him sam the red sox fan. he wore a ball cap and wore his jersey to work every day and none of us knew each other's last names yet. you literally say, find sam the red sox fan and try to get you going. people would be scurrying around and you have this energy going on and as people start to, to sort of give an example of what is going on you have this very high energy going on which could be very, very intoxicating. but on the other hand it could be toxic because remember we don't have institutional history together to guide us. we don't have parameters you might have in a normal work place. we're just, we're a work place without borders, without boundaries. we had a manual that we could give people that was this thick t was about five-pages. it was the employee manual. it was about five-pages i don't know what we could have put in it. here is how you get your health insurance benefits and here's where the rest rooms are. we had nothing to tell
2:13 pm
people, right? you have this energetic group of people and they're competitive and maybe you could even say we're a little bit ambitious, right? so you come into this environment. many people came in without a job. they're just volunteers and they want to get a job. some people, so they want to get noticed by the right people. and they, you know, and you have people who have been hired who want maybe more responsibility, right, and they probably traditional in their job. you have department heads who are racing against each other to maybe get a little more budget than the other and get a little more turf than the others than you might expect. you have this thing going on where it is a very chaotic time and you really need to get control of this because in this environment where there are no sort of norms, it is like building a village from scratch where everybody comes to a place with no rules, no norms, no structures, right? it's like the wild west and
2:14 pm
not everybody, you know, some people who, you know, have their own tactics for getting their own way, right? sometimes even good people lose control of their inner jerks. that is a problem early in the campaign, right? we all have them, come on. so you throw an elbow at this stranger you don't know maybe. maybe that turns into a bit of an ongoing skirmish. maybe rivalries start to develop. then, you know, blame starts to fly. reputations start to fail. your leadership can die in the very first days if you don't manage yourself right in this environment. and campaigns uniquely grow from these seeds of turmoil. so, how do you get control of this kind of environment, right? sometimes, you know, sometimes you have these campaigns that continue to grow up with the dysfunction and you don't know what's happening in other campaigns. we heard the knives were sharpened in the clinton campaign but you don't know this and you don't really
2:15 pm
know, like poker you know what your hand is but don't know what the other hands are in the other campaigns until later down the campaign trail things start to show up in the news, right? where this campaign, unnamed campaign staffer said this about a named campaign staffer. maybe you start connecting dots there is some power centers that have emerged and, you know, some, and some warring factions maybe that might be happening in other campaigns. so if you don't get control of this early you grow up with this kind chaos. how did we do it? i give the candidate, i give the candidate all the credit. and there were three things getting towards a little bit to start that a little bit. three principles he gave our staff in the very earliest days. no drama. respect everyone. build it from the bottom up. no drama, respect everyone and build it from the bottom up. so i think everybody knows
2:16 pm
about no drama, but you know it really was all we had to hang our hats on as an organization. infighting would not be tolerated. respect everyone. that became the cornerstone for the collaborative environment we ultimately had. we had to break through some silos and things but we got there and build it from the bottom up. i think people know about that, saw that in action not just in the communities but that was also how we were supposed to work as a campaign, right? and so this was important for us. it gave us a culture, gave us some form. even late in the campaign, later, many, many months later when we had some clinton staff coming into the campaign after we won the nomination, i remember a former clinton staffer coming to me and saying henry, i want to be more forceful about whatever issue was bothering her but you guys have this no drama obama thing i don't want to challenge too forcefully. so it lasted throughout the campaign through the difficult bumps of, you know, the different sort of forms that we went through of the
2:17 pm
campaign, the different, you know, crises we went to together. and so but it was more than just that. it wasn't just about our culture. he actually gave us an idea of the kind of person we should have in the campaign, right? the type of person we should hire which is really freeing for me as a manager because now i'm not just hiring people with long resume's with certain skillsets. i'm hiring a type of person, right? this no drama, build it from the bottom up perspective type of person and it really did change the face, this more than anything changed face of our organization. i described, remember having much later with a conversation from my old mentor from harvard a gentleman named david gerg begin, i give all the credit for the five years i spent with the obamas both in the campaign and the white house. he met me and asked me to meet for coffee or a drink after work late in the campaign. so i got off early that
2:18 pm
night. it was 9:30. and i met him and he said, so what was the secret to obama's success? we're about three weeks out. i don't think he was predicting november but was looking to this point. he said, what was the secret to your success? i explained to him type of person we had. oh, you hired leaders. i only hired leaders. i would have never filled a spot with a nonleader. which is kind of counterintuitive what people think you can only have one leader at a time. what i looked backings i described person and hope and change maker so to speak. i described the person as three things. four things actually. innovative mind, you know, service heart. entrepeneural spirit, and collaborative approach. innovative mind, entrepeneural spirit, and collaborative approach. i think that was what not only was the type of person that was drawn to the
2:19 pm
campaign, to our staff but was also drawn to the campaign more broadly in the communities. and so one more thing and then we're going to go to questions i want to say about this. the candidate not only, not only you know, gave us this advice but he actually lived by his advice. i remember day he decided to make his biggest, probably his biggest hire in the campaign, joe biden, in august. and i remember when i learned that he had picked joe biden, i was like, really, joe biden? this is not, you know, this is not so change kind of guy, right? 30 years in the senate. just like almost everything we were campaigning against. i will tell you joe bide, when he came in i couldn't have liked him more. he was, everything that you would think he was. he was no drama. the most unassuming entrance into the campaign that we could have, that we could have had for a guy who had all the senate trappings. you almost didn't notice he
2:20 pm
came in he was so easy. respect everyone. that's obvious. there isn't a more bottom up kind of guy than joe biden. and i think he integrated so well into the campaign. he was part of us. you heard, you know, how there were maybe some divisions within the campaign between mccain and mccain camp and palin camp. we didn't have a camp, right? so you can see the value of that kind of chemistry and him coming in. when he came in he wanted to meet all the staff and he said, you could tell how excited he was. he said, you know, you guys are the ones that kicked my ass on the campaign trail. i wish i could have found a easier way to get here but i'm so glad to be here now. he was really warmly received by all of us. and so it gets to a final point here about the candidate. he would go out to people and he would say, if you want to know how i'm going to run my campaign, if you want to know, what kind of
2:21 pm
president i will be, watch how i run my campaign. he went to community after community and community and said that if you want to know what kind of president i will be watch how i run my campaign. that is a pretty bold thing for a candidate to say because campaigns are so complicated and there is so much going on. for all the talk of barack obama that he was, never met a payroll, never had a business before, he took control, he took, he took control of the culture and ethos. he took responsibility for his organization from the earliest days. he used, he would gather us in the very first days like a half moon and would say look, i am still learning my way on the campaign trail. i still don't have my footing yet. i'm still making mistakes. i'll counting on you guys. he would say that in the very first days. but i tell you he doesn't have to beat on how he would command his organization. when he would go out and say, watch how i run my campaign, that elevated people like me because we had a lot of
2:22 pm
pride in what he was, you know, what he was asking us to rise up to. and so, so i'm going to stop right there and maybe get to some q&a but, but i hope we can get a few questions about maybe some of my experiences, pull out some questions you might have about career paths and different other things. i will go to you murray. >> so we have some time for q&a. i just wanted to give a couple of brief ground rules. we have a mic right here. so if you want to ask a question, you should step up there and ask one. but the sort of quick ground rules are just make sure the question's a question. there should be a question mark at the end of it. that is how you will know. try to be brief if you can with the question and ask you ask, give henry a bit of
2:23 pm
time to answer, you may want to just have a seat or whatever. so, the mic is right here. if we could have folks show up and ask a question. >> i'd like to hear the rest of the white baseball cap and sweats story that you started to tell but then went on. >> yeah. no. that was it. he actually, well, i will tell you something he said. he said to me, he said to me, more than once. he said he used to say about the campaign, keep it tight. you know how i like it run tight. and my first day actually at my swearing in i saw him again, this is many years, a couple years later, and he said the same thing. he really valued, one of those things i just liked about him in those days, you know, was the fact that this was a candidate. he would say we're going to do it differently. we're going to run it like a
2:24 pm
business. he was very principle-driven and i liked that. you know, i'll just dial back quickly. when i started my own practice i wanted everyday people to run for political office and i wanted them to learn the principles of success, of leadership, of running an organization and not learn the tactics. and so, i would, you know there was a lot of things going on in the democratic party where you could learn how to do a door knock and learn how to make a speech and learn how to be a candidate. i wanted to have people learn how to become a ceo of their own organization. i wanted them to entrepreneur their way to their election. that is the thing he would do from the very earliest days you were impressed with the fact that he had an appreciation for the principles that drove success. he was very long headed. he never got caught up in the headlines of the day. maybe we'll talk about that a little more as we go but he was always looking down the road. so, that, i mean that was
2:25 pm
just, it was just it. he was coming through. just a moment that stuck with me because it just felt like at the time it didn't mean anything. the was later when i started to look back i realized he got secret service detail and on some level you start to lose something in that moment. i never heard him complain about that or i think there is something you lose or change that happens when you're an ordinary guy, then all of sudden these changes are starting to happen that transform you. so. get some more questions. yeah, hu. hi. line up. we'll line up. >> one of the, the exciting part about the campaign for me was obama's response or description of his relationship with the reverend jeremy wright. could you talk about your role in that damage control? i mean that was such an incredible speech.
2:26 pm
his language, his tone, the pace. i was mesmerized for the half hour or so i watched it. and i would love it if you could give -- >> i will really disappoint you. i didn't like the speech. >> no? why not? >> but i am wrong, right? i remember the time -- well, let me go back a little bit. you can sit down. i will take a little while to answer this. so, yeah, so getting to that moment, i didn't know much about reverend wright in the days, you know. i knew there was this person out there and, you know, throughout the life of the campaign. to me it felt like the worrying uncle you didn't want to dinner or something. i didn't really know much about it. i didn't want to know about it. it was something that i didn't concern myself with. when the reverend wright, when that whole thing hit on tv, it really did cause obviously a national stir
2:27 pm
and, i, you know, when you have a crisis, things just happen both outside and inside. so you're doing, you're dealing with, you're dealing with the issue. obviously this is an issue between two men also. this is a very personal thing and but me from the campaign side i just wanted this issue to sort of be done with, right? i wanted to solve it. i was looking for a speech. at the time we need to just, i personally thought we had to cut tie, you know. we had to move on and that was the only way we could do it. i didn't feel like the speech went far enough with that. it was just, it was just silly. it was an amazing speech and, by the way, with his, with the help of speechwriter too. it was the right speech. the right tone. there was everything right about it. and i also just, would say that i always just thought that this was one of those things where you had, i
2:28 pm
don't know, i'm just making this up, but at the time i thought there was two men who have had long histories together and this is the man who brought him to christ and, married him to his wife and baptized his children and there is this very personal thing going on and i thought, boy, it must be hard, these two men must go to sleep every night in their separate places just tortured by this in the end what i thought was really amazing about i thought he handled it in the end with real grace. i think people watched him go through this process and, in fact, he didn't really leave the church for, officially for about another month and a half i think and so i think it spoke a lot to him. if he would have handled the way i would have thought about it would have been a disaster but no one was asking me. i would say this. when you have a crisis though you also have to think about the fact it is not just a pr crisis. what is happens in any crisis not just this one
2:29 pm
when the money stops, right? all of a sudden the money stops. this is the part i was seeing right? it is like okay, money is not coming in. people are starting to panic. you know, the fund-raisers want to revise their goals down. the chief, the consider. if fo is nervous because -- cfo is nervous because she can't cut back spending and even in that moment as an organization inside we really came together between the different players and we worked out a plan that helped us get through that time. we knew it was a slump in terms of the money and we knew things would work out over time and they did. so i actually had a sort of different view of this and i was reacting a little bit at the time to those events. >> my question is actually a two-part. how would you care the obama campaign that you were a part of versus the campaign of today? and then the second part of that question would be, how would you contrast the obama campaign versus the romney campaign? >> well, that's a great
2:30 pm
question. i mean, when i, when i, i remember being in a room, we used to have this meeting every morning in chicago and, i remember sitting in this room, it was later in the campaign. it was maybe september, october, maybe sometime around this time and every morning we would have a meeting of the senior staff and i remember looking out the window of this high-rise we were in, i remember thinking could i ever do this again? every day you come together and you plan out what is going to happen during the day. and at night i come home and turn on the tv, because you have this meeting and everybody scatters, does what they're going to do and you hear what the candidate's going to do that day and all the execution around the events of the day. then i would come home at night and actually see how the day went. i would turn on the tv and see the events in some farraway city playing out the way you talked about in the morning t was magical, right? i think i thought i was
2:31 pm
pretty done. this is as much as i could do. i decided at that moment i was not going to do 2012. my son was now a year old at this point. the only baby born and turned one during the life of the campaign. so he's the obama baby. my second baby, by the way i'm digressing but my second son zane, was born the 120 day mark of the new administration. we had a lot of stuff going on at home too. so, yeah, but when i look at it's so different because this time four years ago i had 58 races under my belt. the obama campaign has not had one yet really this year, right? i just think this is really hard work to go, many of them left for chicago about almost two years ago. and it's, you know, some people may describe it in the news as a slog. i imagine it is. it is probably really, really hard to go that long and have that one day at the end. i can't imagine.
2:32 pm
what is the difference? i don't know yet. there is that. but at this point you had 57 or 58 tests of us that you could see how we were doing. we haven't had that yet for the obama campaign. even romney has had some races under his belt this year. we have a sense how his organization is working. i expect it's a pretty tight organization. i think romney's, you know, a, you know, has had a lot of the same challenges that we had and more in 2008 than this campaign has in 2012. that is the difference tweens those. in terms of the difference between i think your question was the difference between romney and obama this time, right? well they are two different campaigns. one is a challenger campaign the and one is an incumbent campaign. where romney, if i was, no one is asking for my advice. i would say you see him coming towards the debate, his campaign is coming towards the debates and i think one of the challenges, i will talk about both
2:33 pm
campaigns because i want to keep this a little bit even-handed here. i think one of the challenges the romney campaign will have, criticism he is not connecting. you hear that a lot. he doesn't connect. what is wrong with mitt romney i actually, i don't know, he seems like a nice enough guy to me and, he was my governor a while and i thought he was pretty competent in massachusetts. one of the things i think he hasn't done in terms of connecting he has failed, not just like he is not connecting with people. i know there is that there but the thing that is really going on he has not been able to say, why his time at bain would make him ready for president. and that's the connection that i think people are not, are not seeing. and he can be warm and talk about roses on his mother's bedside table like he did at convention which was very moving but until he starts connecting in that way i think, i think he's going to continue to struggle on that front. i think the obama campaign
2:34 pm
going into the debates, doesn't have the burden here but, probably would, should talk a little bit about what the next four years is going to be like and i expect that will happen during the debate, but you know, i say they don't have the burden here because i'm talking tactically here. the challenger does have that burden. we have a history with barack obama. we have a sense what he's done. we have a sense what he is like and what he will done. when you're the challenger you really have to say why you will be different. obama did that in 2008 and, that's the thing i think romney is going to have to, i think will be, will need to do. because we are evaluating one as the president, as the champion so to speak in boxing materials. we're evaluating one as the challenger. if you don't play a role as the challenger in the minds of people, well, then it's hard to imagine you will play the role of the champ
2:35 pm
well. that is my own sort of two cents on that. >> we all know that the words that we use are very important. so on the campaign that you worked on how did the candidate choose which key words or catch phrases he wanted to use and to what degree was that influenced by what he thought the own voters wanted to hear? >> let me tell you, i can't probably speak for the candidate here but i will say is that, let me talk about how words came across maybe differently than people might have thought. for example, you know the hope and change and yes, we can, some of those things, america we can believe in, if you look at the way we talked about words back then i really felt, even forward, which is the slogan, i say slogan, but there was a lot of talk when he came out with forward. what's this?
2:36 pm
it seems odd? why not an america built to last or some of these other things? the thing i always liked about president obama he, he uses as an ethos and not as a slogan. i thought forward was perfect as an ethos. it is a terrible slogan but if you think about it as a slogan but actually forward, when you, you know, there was always something, if i was in the campaign right now i would see forward, i would take that internalize it a little bit. okay, staff, you guys are volunteers. all of the people inside, you guys have gone this hard, this long, keep going. persevere, right? then it has a different meaning for people outside. the same thing with yes, we can. i, so the thing i think was fascinating about the way he would use words, two things. one was, in his speeches he would talk as the candidate and he would talk as the ceo. and so, for example, if you go back and look at his iowa
2:37 pm
speech, and i don't, i'm going off my little pea brain so i will not get this totally right. i remember after iowa he gave a speech and he talked about organizers in their communities. he was literally talking right to our staff in iowa and to all of us. after we had this, we suffered this loss, i suppose many of you remember the moment when hillary supposedly, maybe, didn't cry in new hampshire? and we lost, right. we went on to lose. that was quite a stunning moment for us. and he did this speech, if you look back at the new hampshire speech, it is yes, we can. and you know we had this moment in headquarters right after the defeat, it was jarring. we were stunned. we were supposed to win that race, if you remember the way we were like double-digit favorites the morning of, right, the election and we lost and i remember david plouffe, maybe it was david's assistant, katie johnson, said, listen, it was late at
2:38 pm
night, it was like 10:00 at night. i called everybody on my team over to my desk. katie said, make sure everybody watches the speech. i said, great. people coming from the shadows of the dark of headquarters. it is nighttime, right? people are still at work. coming from the darkness and i have this team of people around me and we're talking about it. then all of sudden, you see the headquarters starting to head toward the tvs. as i thought was happening in all of our offices across the country the president, the candidate was about to speak and he did this speech called, yes, we can. it had this theme of, yes, we can. and in that speech he talked about, it was the best, you know, victory speech i had ever heard in a defeat he talked about the long lines at the polls. first he congratulated hillary clinton on a great race. he talked about the long lines at the polls. he talked about how you made it happen. i just think he was not just talking to us but talking to
2:39 pm
hillary's staff like good work, everybody. he had this message if you go back and look at the speech, literally in headquarters when he was done everybody started clapping as if he was speaking to us, right? that was the real value -- david plouffe was a real master being able to make an e-mail that would speak -- he treated all of our stake, all of our lists, so to speak as if everybody was a stakeholder. he always made you feel like he was bringing everybody along with you. everybody was like an insider. and so, you know, so you look back on yes, we can and look back on, you know, moments like that and i always thought there was sort of like two things that were happening at one time. and i have to say i haven't followed it too much at this time. i expect they're doing something much the same but that was certainly happening back then. >> hi. i have to ask, could you have done the job you did if you didn't have the affinity
2:40 pm
you did for the candidate? >> oh, in the campaign or the white house? talking about the campaign. >> campaign, yeah. >> no. no. but let me just tell you a little bit. i appreciate the question. you put so much on the line. first of ail, if we didn't really believe in this candidate we wouldn't have moved, you know and gone and done this and, but the thing that's, the thing that was kind of inspiring was, you know, we had, i think this was an unusual election from anything i'd seen before. we would have a crowd and we would have to count up. usually when you do a crowd count you count down. okay we'll have 500 people. make room for 400. this is a phenomenon that in many, many years of organizing i had never seen before. but i will say that you put it, you know, put it all on the line for this person. you know, i think it is really hard when you're, it's like a football player
2:41 pm
their coach leaves in the middle of the season. it's really hard to, when you get betrayed by your candidate. and the thing i liked about this candidate he was always very honest with us even like for example in the early days, listen i don't really have quite right over here. i'm counting on you. that was pretty candid for a candidate to say. i thought he was very refreshing and probably another reason why i don't think i will do another race again because i think i had the perfect moment for myself, right? so, thank you. >> well you sort of answer my question. >> oh, good. >> i want to add on to it. here he is doing these speeches and he is addressing not only the constituents but his own people, the staffers, with this language. when you went back to the headquarters or to that headquarters in that area, did you watch how that language affected the staffers, their reaction to it? was it mixed? was it in support? how was that language
2:42 pm
received by them, by his, his speeches? >> yeah, i mean. there was obviously people that really liked, there was some high points of the speech, the speech on race. the ones i remember, that one, new hampshire, iowa. you know, the thing that was, maybe if i could pivot a little bit though. the thing i thought was interesting when we talk about language and words was how he used pictures. i don't know if people really paid attention to that. obviously the candidate has a great command of language and david axelrod, his chief strategist, has a really strong command of language. he was a journalist. the thing i think was interesting about the campaign was also this running narrative, you know, that you could look at, you could probably look at now and it was, kind of a really, you know, it was really kind of a beautiful story if you really look at
2:43 pm
it. if you look at the period right after, i guess, right after new hampshire. maybe even with that new hampshire speech. but when he rolled through, after we lost new hampshire, we had this period where we had to learn how to win again. we were going into nevada and we, we were probably going to lose there. we actually did lose i think by six points but we actually i think won by one point in the caucus count, delegate count. then we were going into south carolina and between, between like there was about 20 days where we started introducing the candidate outside of iowa and you would see moments, for example, when we were in kansas with kathleen sebelius and you know, david, i think david plouffe had this gift for not sort of rolling out endorsements but he always told a story with the endorsement and he never let the endorsement sort of step on the message what we were trying to do.
2:44 pm
the story in el dorado, kansas, that his grandparents met there during the depression. they were trying to carve out a live life for themselves on this really bleak time and what they wanted to do i think for their daughter and we were introduced to, with kathleen sebelius standing next to him, this candidate who's formed by these heartland values we didn't know about. so you had these, you had, for example, the roll yoult of bill bradley in new hampshire, right? this wasing, he had a really good run against al gore. so you had the story of this, also this sort of little-known candidate going to take on the establishment that would energize the new hampshire electorate. after we lost new hampshire we ruled out john kerry at some point. john kerry which dulled the shine on that new hampshire win. and rolling through the country we had, you started seeing a story. he went to denver and
2:45 pm
started talking about he was going to come back and be here for the convention. so i thought, it was very interesting. two other things that happened during that time i remember. i remember the state of the union that year. and george bush was going to do a state of the union monday night and we, i remember turning on my television set in the afternoon. i think it was the afternoon. we were going to do this thing at american university in washington and we told this story, this really powerful story about youth and, you know, this connection to the candidate and who was there but ted kennedy and caroline kennedy. and you know, you had, on your tv, almost looked like a nominating convention. the way the staff, our staff framed it, it was just this powerful moment coming through on the tv set. it looked like he had already been anointed the president of the united states at that moment, it was so putterful. that -- powerful. george bush was going to do the state of the union, a dull affair, last state of the union of a president really battling his
2:46 pm
popularity. you could see this contrast. then that night kathleen sebelius gives the counter address to the state of the union and comes out to endorse the president next day or couple days later. we didn't need an election to win. we had a moment at pauley pavilion and oprah came out and michelle came out and maria shriver came out. there was this running narrative at the time. you always had these pictures -- i remember one example of this. this foreign trip we had. we had him meeting he was meeting with heads of state and kings and did this rally with 250,000 people in berlin. and you know, these pictures at home with john mccain, he was going through a grocery store. somebody was throwing something in his cart. we were in germany with this big crowd. he was going into a german restaurant quietly for launch. it -- lunch. he was, that first day on the trip sinks a three-point
2:47 pm
shot in front of the troops. john mccain motoring with george w. bush at a maine country club in a golf cart. these kinds of pictures i think started from these two people who really understood language and the narrative, you could see these happening all the time throughout the campaign. i think it really helps form, pictures, images for people in their minds. >> being a lover of campaign, how would you differentiate campaign trail from a propaganda machine, just saying what you have to get the guy to win. >> louder, campaign trail from? >> differentiate from campaign trail to the propaganda machine saying what you have to get the candidate to win, campaign trail to the propaganda machine. >> well, i don't, i don't think people, frankly i don't think voters go for propaganda machines. maybe they did at one time, i don't know. you see this, i mean you see this all the time. people want an ought thentic candidate. i think today's candidate,
2:48 pm
this is i guess i was frustrated about trying to start my own practice, i thought people were just running tactics right? not even a propaganda machine but they were just running tactics. i really thought you have to, it is really striking. you have to define yourself unless you be defined by somebody else. that is lesson for life frankly. on the campaign trail it is never more striking. so i just, i think people see threw it now and it just, there is no market for it anymore. we'll do two more questions and we'll wrap up. yeah. >> about fund-raising, you mentioned -- can you hear me? >> i can hear you. >> you mentioned that the polls, clinton and obama, created an issue with the donors. and then you also mentioned that when there was the pastor issue with obama, that funds started dropping. so i'm wondering are you talking about large donors
2:49 pm
and, how important are the send $75 and you will be invited to dinner, the grassroots type of thing. >> that is a good question. can i get your question too and we'll take them both together. >> mine is totally different. >> that's okay. >> i'm kind of wondering when you pick the language that you use in a campaign, how do you choose that? do you interview a demographic? do you look at words and see what their meanings may be or how they could be construed or even misconstrued? when you, when you're going up against another candidate do you think of words that are going to be powerful against them? or do you think of words that will be powerful for the candidate you're representing? >> thank you. okay. let me take up the question first about, the, i always just say that i think donors
2:50 pm
are investors, right? whether you're investing your time or your money or whatever that is you notice you notice when there is a confidence crisis around you. for me, frankly. sort of the donors are kind of ghosts. not like i know there's a donor right in front of me and somebody is complaining or anything like that. there are very, they're very dedicated people who are giving their time and resources not only opening their wallets but putting their reputation on the line. if i ask somebody to give to my candidate i'm putting somebody's reputation on the line. you have stakeholders and that is part of just what happens. if there's a crisis, use any crisis at all, even what you're seeing in the news we never really know from the outside what the effect of
2:51 pm
that crisis really is on the inside. but we do know that you will see in a report that will come out in the fec, federal election commission filing that the campaign has to file by the end of the month. what we might feel inside if there is something to feel we will probably feel two weeks before it shows up or sometimes even a month before it shows up on paper. so it's not, so it's not like everybody sees it right when it happens. and, it can happen with the grassroots and it can happen with the big donors. you know, people react to what they see. sometimes by the way a crisis actually generates money. you know our biggest, our biggest online day i think that i remember was when sarah palin accepted the nomination to be vp. our donations spiked on that day and she did for us probably in some ways we weren't getting from hillary clinton even when, with the
2:52 pm
women vote. i think the clinton coalition really kind of didn't come in, wasn't because of hillary clinton but the clinton coalition really came in on the day palin i think announced, at least from what i could tell from the money. so it's not just that things collapse. it is also people can rally around your candidate but that really begins with the belief in your candidate, right? so sometimes, i can't say what it's like for other candidates but for mine we had some days were there were pretty tough days and people rallied and it didn't go the other way. frankly there were some days when things kind of slowed down and people got nervous. but it want, i don't think in our case we have a lot of those big swings. they do say, there's a saying that candidates never get out of the race. you see these candidates that stay on after they have had a really bad moment and keep going and when they're going to get out. there is kind of a saying that a candidate doesn't really get out until the
2:53 pm
donors say which is when the money stops. to your other question quickly, tell me again, i'm sorry. go ahead and tell me again. i apologize. yeah, go ahead. this will be our last question? is that okay? >> my question is, how do you choose the words for a campaign. >> yeah. >> do you use a demographic? do you interview people? when choosing those words do you actually choose words that are going to discredit or make the opponent look bad? or are you choosing words that are going to make your candidate look his best or her best? >> yeah. >> i mean and how does that all work in together? >> uh-huh. look, there's, i'm not, so i wasn't the wordsmith. so but let me tell you what i think is really, that is in play that kind of gets to your question. i think there are three principle at work on the campaign trail that are my
2:54 pm
favorite, that i think by the way, for students you should pay attention to this because i think these are going to be helpful for you as you go into your own career. the first is define thyself lest you be defined. this gets to how you define yourself and, i think it gets to authenticity. and i always like to say it's the job of the campaign to define your candidate and to define theirs too. and so there's that going on. the second principle i think is, have or work toward building a base, which again he gets to credibility. you have to have a base of support. we really made iowa our base. i think maybe julie yanni tried to make florida his base. you have to have with constituency, with a geography, whatever that is.
2:55 pm
it gets to the ish issue of your credibility. third is mine your ceoness. this is gets to own opinion about 2008. our candidate was, he was pretty much defined as hope and change in 2008. and he had, you know, he had built, he had built his credibility, his standing, he positioned his leadership with the people and i'm going to come back to that and the third thing was i think people thought he was a steady leader. when i look at, when i look at, when i look back on john mccain, i think that he didn't, i think he might have had trouble defining himself and i think at one point he was the experienced candidate, the experienced war hero. then he kind of flipped back to this maverick. and he was going back from experience and pounding our candidate about being inexperienced. but then he picked sarah
2:56 pm
palin which was clearly the choice of maverick, maverick mccain, right? had this kind of thing going on here. then you get to credibility a little bit. when the market collapsed, people thought that this favored r candidate was because he was better on the economy but i think it changed the election into a election on leadership and that was where people voted for barack obama. they voted on his leadership and not who would better manage the economy because if you saw john mccain in that moment, he was, he suspended his campaign. he went to washington. said our candidate should come with him. went back to the campaign trail. was going to be at the debate. there was a lot of kind of lurching going on with john mccain at that point. our candidate never moved from the campaign trail. he stayed firmly there. he positioned his leadership with the people. his voice was rising up from the neighborhoods. john mccain was the voice echoing from the halls of washington. that was a contrast that
2:57 pm
favored our candidate i think. then it gets to the last point i want to make in that mind your ceoness. in that, john mccain, for example, said i'm going to, i'm going to, you know, we should skip the debate and focus on the bill. our candidate's response was, listen, i can run a campaign, i can do the debate, i can do more things at once. i've got an organization that can handle a lot here. i can handle a lot here. i'll be ready for the debate. voters want to hear from us. there was a sense barack obama was a steady leader in these moments too. so i think all of these things are in play on the campaign trail. they're in play right now. people i think are really evaluating there is this, there's this, there's this definition war that's going on and there is a credibility battle that is going on, and there's a sense that, which one is going to be the better ceo. and going on and all of these work together and they play off each other and they have got to come together in a way that makes sense for voters or voters i think
2:58 pm
start making evaluations based on that. i think i'm going to leave it at that, huh? thanks folks. i had a great time tonight. >> one campaign stop for president obama today at ohio state university in columbus. you can see live coverage of his remarks starting at 5:00 p.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span. we have more campaign 2012 coverage coming up later this afternoon. we'll bring you a debate for candidates to be west virgina's next governor. democratic incumbent earl ray tomlin against republican bill maloney. watch that at 7:00 p.m. eastern also on c-span
2:59 pm
>> a look now at mitt romney's foreign policy speech yesterday and the role that issue is playing in the presidential election from today's "washington journal.". >> host: editor-in-chief at foreign policy. thanks for coming in this morning. >> guest: thanks for having me. >> host: mitt romney made his foreign policy speech yesterday. did you hear anything new? >> guest: this was an important speech for mitt romney. i think the third important foreign policy speech he
3:00 pm
made of the campaign. people are paying a lot more attention now that we're in days and weeks of the election. so i think it was an important moment for him. really what he is trying to do is what challengers are always trying to do when it comes to foreign policy. he is not outlining how he would run the country, how he would project american power in the world so much as continuing to draw contrasts with barack obama. i'm reminded of that old line. campaigns are all about accentuating small differences and emphasizing the heck out of them. i think that is little bit what we saw yesterday. . .
3:01 pm
and of course there's the classic republican establishment, what we think of as much more liberal internationalist. sue scott of those folks competing in foreign policy. i would say you saw a little bit of every day. different factions in a speech yesterday, but clearly he's coming down more on the side of what we can think of as sort of the second part of the bush administration, which is to say he's embracing the idea that there's a role for american values and the freedom agenda if you build the world. but he's trying to do so while avoiding very carefully promising to send american troops off into new foreign military. so it's a fine line for him to walk. >> host: join the conversation about foreign policy and campaign 2012, here's the number to call.
3:02 pm
republicans call (202)585-3881. , democrats, (202)585-3882. let's listen to that romney outlining his foreign policy ideas than virginia. >> the president is fond of saying the tide of war is receding. and i want to believe him as much as anyone else. but when we look at the middle east with iran is close to the to nuclear weapons capability, the conflict in serious threatening to destabilize the region and violent extremists on the march and an american ambassador in reader said, likely up to him about qaeda affiliates, it is clear the risk of conflict in the region is higher now than when the president took office. i know the president hopes for a safer, freer and more prosperous middle east with us. i share this hope. that hope is a strategy.
3:03 pm
we can't support our friends and defeat enemies in the middle east when our words are not backed up by deeds. when our defense spending is arbitrarily and deeply qaeda. while i have a trade agenda to speak of and it is not one of partnership, but opacity. >> it garnered a headline in "usa today." romney's hope is not a strategy. susan glasser, how much of his speech was against president obama and what he stunned? and how much of slain at his own trajectory and agenda? >> mostly most was the challenger, this is a critique of the obama policy and that is a very common tax by challengers. there were some good lines. he talked hope is not a strategy. he's tried to emphasize his critique of obama as fighting from behind, which was sort of an unnamed administration official at the very end of a
3:04 pm
new yorker magazine piece last year and has become a sort of state of republican critiques of the president's foreign policy. that being said, there are some real differences between obama and romney when it comes to foreign policy. for example, romney has russia as an important geopolitical united states. much of the surprise of his advisers at the time, but rather than locking away, just continue to emphasize emphasize and say vladmir putin look at no quarter. barack obama has synthesized as one of his major foreign policy accomplishments, a quote unquote reset with russia that has enabled us to get more done, but they are sending supplies into afghanistan through the northern route, which has become a more significant issue with problems of pakistan have made it difficult for us to get for an example or have a new missile --
3:05 pm
sorry time a new nuclear arms limitation agreement with russia. so that is a serious difference. there are others as well, but when it comes to the core issues, for example, how to stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon or even what it is that in that romney would do differently when it comes to encouraging the growth of democracy in some of these countries. it's pretty hard to tell what they would do differently. >> host: we will hear from willie who joins us from illinois on the democrat line. good morning. >> caller: how are you doing? good morning. >> host: good. >> caller: yes, i definitely agree with the lady talking to about the foreign policy issue because i think mitt romney is an opportunist. like he went and disrespected all of our allies.
3:06 pm
you know, he's just an opportunist. he kisses up to benjamin netanyahu on foreign policy. i think obama is actually steadfast spirit and alchemy type to benjamin netanyahu on the phone for hours, so it's not like he's been dodging them. he doesn't kisses up to our foreign leaders. he talks to them like a leader, just like the debate, obama held his head up high and didn't have his head down, looking down like everybody said he did. as far as the media, i don't think the real motives, i think a lot of people just followed with the media was saying as far as what he was talking about. i mean, what the media didn't hold his head up high. he was very presidential outcome of real calm. i think mitt romney was desperate.
3:07 pm
>> host: we will have the candidates debate foreign policy specifically in the coming weeks. do you reflect on the earlier part of what he was saying? >> guest: clearly more a common set of questions, but i think romney did make a trip to europe to israel. he went to london, where he criticized the olympics games. he went to poland. he went to israel. democrats have tried to emphasize what they see as romney's penchant for gas. clearly he's not entirely comfortable with the subject of foreign policy enhancing the time to be somewhat undiplomatic into international affairs. at the same time come udc is somewhat inconsistent critique as my colleague pointed out on the website yesterday when it comes to romney and what the democrats are saying about him. on the one hand, they called him of flip-flopping when it comes to his foreign policy.
3:08 pm
on the other hand, he says there's no real difference between him on the account and yet they're also the coming of the bush administration and obama sure in there. so i think you have a little bit of angry possible critique being made because his views are still somewhat up none and it's not clear what kind of president he would be. >> let's listen to how some of this is coming to plan the campaign trail. this is an obama tv ad hitting on some of the issues you just brought up. >> i am barack obama and i approve this message. the >> that is the news media and fellow republicans call those two are in poland, when a u.s. diplomats were attacked in libya company are times that from this nature response showed an extraordinary lack of presidential character and even
3:09 pm
republican experts as romney's remarks were the worst possible reaction to what happened. if this is how he handles the world now, just think what might romney might do as president. >> host: foreign policy on the trail. any comments on that in relation to which your sanity moments ago. in fact gaining traction? are people paying attention to foreign policy is that these candidates? >> guest: i think that's a very important question. first of all, take some of the grain of salt because before the convention, i believe the number was 4% in deciding their vote in this presidential election. as a result of the attack and then got the and attention to where does al qaeda stand and i what exactly is our position in this new middle east has been reinvented. so the numbers have gone up. but what were still talking about is not necessarily going
3:10 pm
to be the decisive issue in the campaign. so i think it's to remember that. >> host: republican line. >> caller: good morning. i had just a couple of questions. you just mentioned romney speaking to lots of ambassador and three others, it came up with this question that they have social security, but that's the direct and ultimately the president ultimately the president of the united states on the next 40% as its security means. and nobody is ever held responsible. we hope those people and anyone working for our government overseas and take care of our government. and that is an abject failure that should be taken this
3:11 pm
election. i don't hear you speaking to it are addressing it. o-oscar let's listen to mitt romney's comments yesterday when he laid out in virginia speaking about the benghazi attack and then we'll get susan glasser to buy him. the >> the attacks bosma should not be seen as raina max. expressions of a larger struggle playing out across the middle east, a region now in the midst of the most profound upheaval in the century. and the folk line can be seen clearly in benghazi at health. the attack on a consulate there on september 11, 2012, was likely the work of forces affiliated with those that attacked our homeland on september 11, 2001. this latest assault can't be blamed on a reprehensible video insulting islam. despite the administration's attempt to convince us of that for so long. now the administration has finally conceded the attacks were the deliberate work of
3:12 pm
terrorists to use violence to impose their dark ideology and others come especially on women and girls were fighting to control much of the middle east today and he seeks to wage perpetual war on the west. >> guest: you know, it's interesting. i'm the one hand a bomb was criticized by many for his initial response are trying to kill and a very partisan critique brought in the midst of the unfolding of events. then he backed off for a while. yesterday, seared in the speech from his critical, but not nearly in the same town and ask it did not suggest anything in particular that he would do differently with regards to what is clearly a very unstable situation in libya today. that being said, i think the caller reflects an important point of view that is out there and one that both obama and romney need to address, which is the question of al qaeda and u.s. national security is really
3:13 pm
what american voters do care about. they may be less concerned about what is happening with writing a new constitution in tunisia, although that is an important moment for this middle east, but they are certainly concerned if the instability of this up evil gives rise to new ungoverned spaces, which allow al qaeda or its affiliate and ideally that is what happened in benghazi and parts of libya. libya arguably is the new semi-failed state in the business central government control over all of this territory and that's part of why you saw this terrible security strategy. but on the specifics of the incident, there's an official investigation and we not only by the ei, the state department has launched what it calls an official accountability review board. those are early into this investigation so we don't have a full picture even now of what actually occurred here but there's no question this is a major tragedy. it's the first time in two
3:14 pm
decades the u.s. that there's been a a situation like this. so it is definitely something there taken seriously. post a susan susan glasser is editor-in-chief of foreign policy. let's hear from chris in richmond, an indiana. >> caller: hi, how are you doing? i want to start out by saying jobs are the most important election, before an policy is also important. as far as governor romney did not point out any specificity what do we do, i disagree. in his speech, he pointed out a lot of things he would do differently. i mean, strongly back in israel and more money on the military. opposing various themes. it is a vast contrast to the president. as far as foreign policy is
3:15 pm
concerned, affect the election, you know, the president's policies have it seemed to work in the middle east. they seem to have gotten worse over there to me and i am an independent. so i'm not thinking a strong point is foreign policy and what some people think is a strong point because of the killing of osama bin laden. and in my opinion, any city present would've taken that action. i'm glad president obama did and i think he deserves credit. no matter who would've been present at the time, they would've made the same decision to do that. >> guest: i think the caller makes an important point there. there is a difference on military spending between obama and romney and one that obama did point out yesterday. he suggested in a speech that obama cuts for the defense budget, which are part of the overly frustration deal that is
3:16 pm
now pending before congress would be quote unquote catastrophic for the u.s. military and romney has suggested putting $2 trillion more into the defense budget and barack obama at this point. it is important to note we aren't even talking about actual cuts to existing budget a scale of u.s. military spending is so vast that way talks about obama,, what he is talking about is going back to the 2006 levels of spending, when i don't think many people thought there was a catastrophically dangerous available if you are spending. in fact, u.s. military currently spans and people are astonished, some in more than 40% of the entire world military spending is that just united states. >> host: the "washington post" today looks at foreign policy and some of the key areas their candidate's position. it looks at comments made by
3:17 pm
president obama and mitt romney. they also look at kaiser health tracking poll from last month. looking ahead to the election, tell me how tony homeport misspending on the military will be to your vote for president with the question asked to respond to this poll, 30% extremely important, 37% say very important. 21%, somewhat important, 11%, less important. the "washington post" goes to their position. the massive federal deficit, president obama announced plans in january for the military that will take overall spending while investing more heavily in social operations forces, growing aircraft and cybersecurity. a new military strategy also emphasizes the u.s. security president the asia-pacific region and mitt romney have thought he would maintain defense training at a gross domestic project and that increase active duty, military personnel by 100,000 troops. the former governor has said he
3:18 pm
would reinvest in a splotchy setback to the navy shipbuilding for other measures. let's listen to more comments made by mitt romney yesterday. this is his take on president obama's policy. >> america as a proud history of strong, confident, principled global leadership, a history written by patriots of both parties. this is america at its best. it is the standard by which we measure every president does so is anyone who wishes to be president. unfortunately, this president's policies have not been able to our best examples of world leadership and nowhere is this more evident than in the middle east. i want to be very clear, the blame for the murder of her people in libya and attacks on our embassies and so many other countries lies solely with those who carry them out. no one else. but it is our responsibility and
3:19 pm
responsibility of the president to use america's greatest power to shape history, not to lead from behind, leaving our destiny at the mercy. unfortunately, that is where we find ourselves in the middle east under president obama. >> host: macron in virginia history outlined his foreign policy strategy and criticizing president obama on the middle east. susan glasser, what would you do differently? is on the ground, drums and the air, what can he do differently? >> guest: the sand, if you listen to his speech, if he taken that its value and to roderick, he is suggesting a much more muscular, assertive. he has the idea is going to get out there and in effect, tell people what to do. now my question is, what happens when i say no? that is where you get to understand what kind of pact titian is that romney?
3:20 pm
how's he going to pay that when his effort to swaggering carry the american big stick doesn't necessarily produce the results that he wants. obama has had to pick up quite dramatically had asked by the way to george w. bush before had a bill clinton before him. what happens if candidates can the campaign trail in sketch of one vision of the weather tends to to be quite critical of their opponent, whether it's the incumbent or the previous presidents foreign policy. for example, george w. bush on russia went inside though clinton was completely wrong. he's completely personalized relationship with russia. if invested too much in forest hills and a massive disaster and i'm going to be a realist. i want to think about america's national interests and level on the relationship with russia. so what did he do kweisi got into office, met with vladimir
3:21 pm
putin, voluptuous icebreakers esop soul. so people have it. the index changes thing. barack obama said he's going to sit down and negotiate with enemies as well as friends. he outlined a new policy of engagement towards iran and north korea. reality simply didn't permit it. the record he's running on frankly would've astonished many of the supporters of barack obama of 2008. post-katrina and its editor-in-chief of foreign policy. here's the latest cover. who won great profession talk about that and a few moments. but here is a question from twitter. obama recess with russia. neither under 12. i think a new approach should be tried. i should share opinions your background. one of your jobs as kochi for one her husband, peter baker of
3:22 pm
the "washington post." this is part of the region of the world you know well. >> guest: yes can we still pay a lot of attention to russia. we were there during vladmir putin's first term in office. c. got to see really the shaping of what has become today's russia in many ways. you know, what is interesting is presidents come and an often talk about resetting russian policy and we oriented net. but there is a consistency of which is to say russian national interest do tend to ultimately dictate. so even if the rhetoric is more i see, as it has been since vladimir putin came back to the presidency can remember he criticized hillary clinton and said she was interfering in the election and the americans are trying to overthrow him. there's been a real chilling relation compared with the quite friendly dealings that obama had with prudence partner, it dmitry medvedev, when he was president.
3:23 pm
that being said, it's hard to imagine a major shift in direction. clearly, the russians have listened to that romney's rhetoric about and being the number one geopolitical file in the understand that it shall be in place if romney does win the election. that being said, is in their interests to continue to cooperate with the united states when it comes to allowing the northern distribution network to continue. why is that? not because they like united states, but because afghanistan is a terrible problem, practically at the borders of russia. it's a major source of other drugs that flow through central asia and on into russia. it doesn't come here to the united states. it's a playground central asia and russia. so i think that the kind of cooperation to take it much more by national interest than it is by the leader the u.s. or russia. >> host: castling is on the
3:24 pm
phone from indiana. good morning. >> caller: good morning, how are you? my head is spinning. i saw with romney's speech yesterday and i just don't understand between the debate in the speech yesterday that people do not understand what a phony liar opportunist he is. i have a nephew who was a marine. he did a tour in iraq and god left him, he thought for our country. and romney in mind, first off, let's get something real clear here once and for all. as far as the sequester cut goes, that is obama's being. it was congressman paul ryan
3:25 pm
thing because they were too immature to act like grown-ups and make a deal, okay? obama had nothing to do with it. it was paul ryan and the congress. selected that clear once and for all. >> host: castling. >> guest: i think one of diminished on trade issues is the question of leadership and that's we heard a lot from that romney about leadership and what kind of role is obama projecting and by extension, what leadership really seaplane as well as here at home in guiding and shaping how we use our national resources. i do think although the polls may not register that much significance to any foreign policy issue, that when it comes to the broader question of leadership, that is a part of what people are going to be casting those done. i think there's an opportunity as romney clearly identified to
3:26 pm
criticize obama as a leader. >> host: president obama was at a fundraiser in california last and i commented on that romney's foreign policy. >> governor romney has a different view. he said it's tragic to win the war in iraq. in a speech today he doubled down on that belief is that ending the war was a mistake. i disagree. bringing our troops home was the right thing to do. [cheers and applause] and every brave american who wears the uniform of this country should know that as long as i'm commander-in-chief, will sustain the strongest military the world's ever known. and when our troops take off their uniforms, we will serve them as well as they have served us. no one who thought russia to fight for a job where he was over the head when they come home. [cheers and applause] >> host: president obama on the campaign trail last night, susan glasser.
3:27 pm
>> guest: obama is make an interesting point. on the one hand, his analysis from the speech isn't quite fair, romney was the same of what to continue the war in iraq that he was criticizing obama for not being able to come to agreement with the iraqi government on a continuing u.s. military of arrangement with the iraqis and the complete withdraw troops. he was and say let's keep fighting in iraq indefinitely. that being said, it clearly is a strong point for obama that he has managed to pull troops out of iraq and that he is announced a withdrawal timeline for afghanistan. that is something that is broadly supported by americans across the political spectrum and white romney is right now engaging in the delicate tightrope walk that i referred to earlier when it comes to foreign policy. he must do critique obama for not having a muscular nephew without actually going over the line in suggesting therefore i'm going to be using this
3:28 pm
goldplated military to talking about and also different situations because romney has not talked about afghanistan much during the campaign because the bottom line is even within his own party, americans broadly speaking are pretty sick of a decade of war and are broadly supportive of the policies obama has first two and of those conflicts in the middle east. >> host: on twitter, governor romney has tempered my remarks about the restaurant principal global leadership. you won't find universal agreement. share your comments on twitter. now let's go to larry, democrats line. hi, larry. >> caller: how are you? >> host: good, how are you. >> caller: i'm sleepy. post a wake up and share what you want to susan glasser. >> caller: i don't know why he
3:29 pm
won the money in the military. i was in the military. i'm retired and we don't need that much money going into the military. we've got more than enough in the main supply, the fraud, waste and abuse more money than you could possibly imagine. trust me. and secondly, i don't think these little skirmishes over the middle east area and in africa has anything to do at the american royal as far as knowing backley was going on. too much information on false information is that pretty much starts the whole 9/11 thing. i think the republican party needs to tie down because what they're doing is making us look like idiots on a global scale. >> host: interesting perspective from someone who served in the military. one issue that i think the democrats have used is to point out that romney increases in defense spending are not being
3:30 pm
requested by the military itself at this point. he is in some areas that for spending that the military has. now of course you are familiar with that phenomenon when it comes to capitol hill. every year the defense budget is the only part of the budget that comes of capitol hill and members of with more money. the rest of the budget that doesn't happen too. the often seen as a political advantage in military spending. >> host: president obama doesn't seem to realize the military strongly supporting romney. obama seems to be unattached. members of the military and the voting. just got my is obama is pretty aware. >> host: kaneda, republic of the republican line. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i want to say that i really
3:31 pm
don't like his domination, and this is what my opinion is, that i feel what is going on. but we defend israel, we defend what they call the design people. i don't believe that it's ever been a belief in religion. this is what i'm going to say that the christian part of barack obama's history made him did not have. another save you some of them. i believe he's christian. i have been to his church and i believe that is what he believes in. as christian and i converted to islam because i felt for women it is more protected because of their traditional role of father and mother in the home with her mother was allowed to be at home and have children with protection of the father. i thought i was a positive situation for me. it takes women off welfare and we don't have that game situation in prison situation that we would have here. but israel, i don't think we
3:32 pm
should follow their lead because i think the world looks at how americans get along with each other, not how israel gets along with america. israel's approach and the religion is an eye for an eye. they do not follow the christian approach. so when things happen to them in the international war, i feel that followed i for an eye and american doesn't follow that actually that's going to be a problem for americans in the future and what to make her own decisions, even if israel says they are going to withdraw their support mass in all of these things because i think they think they are a divine people. that is really salsa and i feel that americans do not have to follow that. abraham was for all people and he was for all peoples children to survive in this world i never said the jewish people were better than any other race on this earth. >> guest: well, there's a lot of hatred or no question that
3:33 pm
comes into play. it's often been politicizing the campaign. but what is the poor tend to remember, that there is a pretty broad consensus against the two parties in the united states when it comes to supporting israel and in particular and a determination to come up with a unified approach to the challenge of stomping around obtaining nuclear weapons. why are we democrats and republicans and not? because the iranians have said that they wish to wipe israel from the face of the map and for the israelis, that has been defined as something close to an existential threat. that is threatening the very existence of the jewish state in the middle east. you know, the bottom line is that it's a pretty tough neighborhood they live in, but this is an order of threat magnitude that is far greater
3:34 pm
than their face before. you won't really see any significant difference between leading democratic or public politicians. now of course there is a conservative leader has real bite out, benjamin netanyahu. he grew up here in the united states in philadelphia and a set at various points he was born republican. clearly he is much closer politically to the republicans in the united states and romney has vowed to let there be no daylight between a position of israel not at the united states when it comes to and potentially a military strike on his facilities. when you have a difference on the question of tactics. what is the most effective way, what if you undertake a military strike in history brought her more war middle east. what if it leads only to putting out the iranian nuclear program by a year or two. but if you accomplish and how much has that setback israel's
3:35 pm
position in the world and doing so? of course potentially the united states as well. those are fat is debated vigorously behind closed doors when it comes to the threat. in the broad sense of others democrats or republicans coming are not going to see a real shift away from the special relationship between israel and the united states. >> host: the op-ed pages of newspapers are looking at that romney's foreign policy speech yesterday. the washing post editorial coming foreign policy atco salts that policy and say what he would do differently. gene robinson writes in the "washington post," same tune, different key. romney's foreign policy sounds an awful lot like obama's. one of our twitters rice and says he wants my muscular foreign policy but offers nothing different than obama's policy. so you see much delay between the two? >> guest: certainly a more muscular rhetoric has been the theme of romney. remember, he's been campaigning on this notion of american great
3:36 pm
if it has accused barack obama as not being a sufficient believer in american exceptionalism and the special destiny of america in world history. that seems to be a somewhat silly exercise in political chess. i think there could be several differences in how romney and obama approach the world, but i don't think this campaign are yesterday's speech has fleshed out what those would be. >> host: hi, robert. good morning. >> caller: jack, i studied foreign policy for a while, for a long time now. i've gone to international speaks in what i hear and see are two different things. what i see on tv assault sides, misinformation and just like that. i've also served in the military. in 1982 i was in new haven, connecticut with my good friend,
3:37 pm
stanley heller, who runs a website called the struggle got over it. he's well known. he interviews all top key players and i was down there celebrating, making people aware of the massacres that have been in beirut in 1982 great deity of soldiers find out the murder 7000 people. cut to yourself, her jewelry. palestinian refugees. so i don't want to hear anything about this. this is really making me feel unsafe. >> host: what is making you unsafe? just a i never get a perspective of a peaceloving person. only someone with a motive. jalisco susan glasser is the editor-in-chief of foreign policy magazine. she is not a neocon, but she brings up the idea of peace and wanted to see more peace, and message are peace throughout the
3:38 pm
world coming out of the president's mouth on that romney's mouth. a rehearing not? >> guest: that i think is an important thing if you step back, very far back and listen to at this rhetoric is. american election-year stand to be thoroughly test oster infield when it comes to at the image of the word is that we want to project. frankly we were talking about this before, but think about the obama of 2008. would you have been surprised? i certainly was, to see for years later he is running on a can paint for he has been reported to personally oversee the kill list from the american campaign. we have assassinated american citizens inside yemen. the al qaeda affiliated. we have waged a very able draw more in the borderlands with afghanistan. obama heinz hargis killing of
3:39 pm
osama bin laden as one of its major features of his foreign policy record. so you know, he's not exactly a pacifist. we'll have on friday the annual awarding of the nobel peace prize to remember when barack obama received the peace prize then gave a very surprising speech in which he talked about the need for war in this modern day and age. i think it suggests about the speaking, americans are a fairly militaristic people and that is certainly the kind of work you're hearing more so than that romney on the campaign trail. >> host: susan glasser, editor-in-chief of foreign policy magazine. who won the great recession? >> guest: there is a lot of talk and of course the campaign, the election-year has been on about the economy more or less. jobs, jobs, jobs, a lot of talk about the law says of the last
3:40 pm
several years of economic or this. now we look at not only the ongoing crisis in europe, but even in the superheated economy in china and india. there's been a lot of, so we thought we should take a look back, take a step back and say there's got to be winners in every process of people. call it creative destruction if you will, there always this again and finally as to benefit or take advantage of new opportunities when forced to by reality. so we have assembled a really interesting list of some of the actual winners. you're an off a lot about the losers. who has been a big winner? hollywood has turned out to be a big winner. probably forced by necessity. do you know notice happen in the last several years? they've gone global in a big way. their revenue is set up usually a time where while their sales in north america are flat or
3:41 pm
even declining, they've gone global. they've even managed in a growth in markets like india, which up until years was resisting their homegrown dollywood. mcdonald's, the quintessential american grants. what if they don? their stock is that something that i found% over the last decade. why? localization. they've figured out you don't actually need to sell american style cheeseburgers and sodas to kid in india or indonesia to make millions and they very smartly customized and on local with food that appeals to local can dumars. donald's hair may be the target of our obesity campaign, may be asserted the obsession with sort of american yuppies. but globally, it still means the middle-class good life it has been a big winner. in tough economic times, makeup
3:42 pm
well-documented economic research to support this fact. and just look at the sales of l'oreal or other big consumer makeup companies and is quite astonishing to that effect. and of course there's incites the extremists, political extremists, which unfortunately look at the rise of the extreme far right and far left parties is not just in greece where that's happening, but here in the united states as well. >> host: susan glasser, editor-in-chief of foreign policy. thanks for coming. >> guest: thanks for having me.
3:43 pm
3:44 pm
>> a quiet overpass in washington although a number of events are taking place among those cameras that have been seeking a business at the 2012 election that will show you tonight in its entirety at 90 clock eastern on c-span. here's a quick look at that. >> i'll start by asking a question and i took her to reach your view about whether you think we are now in a position where we've just come out to 7.8% unemployment, but we are still too high. this is the american new normalcy. >> i don't think we can accept that. it should not be. it need not be. the policies can put the united states on the growth project very in march of this year. the ceo has put out a report on economic growth and jobs. we made a number of recommendations in the energy sector, the regulatory sector and the kinds of strategies that the government takes in some cases needs to allow the private sector to move forward with.
3:45 pm
the united states is today poised in many ways to lead the world in an economic recovery if we can get out of our own way. i think the last four years of just tepid economic growth can be reverse with with with ocean of leadership in ocean of leadership in washington and decision-making. often we are held at simply aren't made. >> tom donahue, i remember speaking to an economist is said to me, america faces a decade as unemployment hovering somewhere around 10%. if you look at the latest brookings report yesterday, america is a bright spot in the world heard how can america bring them on the plane that, crisis in your comic even brazil flowing. >> well first, let's not get the employment numbers and see where god that unemployment on the base numbers going down, more
3:46 pm
americans going to work. look at the full number of famous of 14, 15, 16% of our citizens who either don't have a job, work part-time or they've stopped looking. i'm why is that? is what you've made about the global economy is critical. europe is our largest export market and it is going in a slow decline that will go on for some time. china france europe is the largest export market and we have an extraordinary relationship with china but they're experts colina. all of this is challenged. the fundamental issue for america to understand, if we get read of uncertainty, if we step up in a clear way and decide what we're going to do a better unemployment by using energy, expanding tourism, by working hard to change a regulatory system, which is choking the american industry and if we face
3:47 pm
a fundamental realities here, we can fix this. we only need one thing. we need leadership in the white house come the leadership the congress and leadership in the business community. >> can unemployment comes significantly down? >> you ask if this is the new normal and i think it's really the choice americans will make on election day. is this normal for america? is this will want to see? most americans would say no and the american spirit is alive and well and that will help us grow the economy. but you have to look at some fundamentals. for manufacturers is 20% more expensive to manufacture this country than anywhere else in the world and that's after the cost of labor. so when you look at policies on taxes, energy, on a regulatory regime, those are the things making it more expensive to manufacture in this country, making it more difficult for manufacturers to invest and create jobs. it's not just manufacturing. you see that across the entire business community.
3:48 pm
>> policy issues, taxes, regulation and whatever's happening rest of the world, america will start to be kicked out again unemployment rate will come down? >> i agree this is the bright spot and we should recognize and embrace it. if this is an opportunity for us to lead an emerging recession we've been fighting for five years to reestablish as the leading economy in the world, you know, there was an attention paid to the numbers last week, but the important point is the one that tom made, 7.8% is good if that number comes down, which look at the bigger, broader number that is much higher than that, much of the numbers we've almost 5 million americans out of work now for more than 27 weeks. those are people whose skills the road and become mature difficult to employ. at the moment in this country of a mismatch between skills and means to do for going to at
3:49 pm
numbers, the way to fix this is not focusing on unemployment. it's focusing on growth. gdp number was 1.9 in the first quarter, 1.7 an add-on to 1.3 in the second quarter. so we should be attacking the gdp growth number because employment is in output growth. we have to talk about growth, not unemployment. >> and discussion on women's health care and contraception services. georgetown university, sandra fluke was among the panelists. he talked about health care accessibility and the governments role of funding reproductive services. is hosted by southern methodist university in dallas from late last month, it is about an hour and a half. [applause] >> thank you very much. but i would like to do is
3:50 pm
introduce our panel is first and then sandra fluke to speak for a little bit and then each panelist will speak individually for a few minutes and then we'll have a brief discussion before we open up into a question-and-answer with you guys in the audience. so let me start first with charles curran, the elisabeth scurlock university professor of human values at smu. he served as president of three national professional societies, the american illogical society, the catholic theological society of america and the society of christian ethics. he has won numerous awards and has authored and edited more than 50 books on moral theology. he has been a "new york times" man in the news, and abc person of the week. next, other than to introduce smu associate provost, sub one. professor linda eads is serving as director of the hot leadership scholars program. she has taught at the school of
3:51 pm
law since january 1986. she teaches and writes in the areas of evidence, legal ethics, constitutional law and woman in the law. professor linda eads has been named to the america my institute and is recognized as one of the texas top women players. i also like to introduce ken lambrecht, president chief executive officer of planned parenthood of greater texas. the organization is the largest reproductive health care divider in the state and one of the largest in the nation. its network of health centers versus law announcer central and north texas, including austin, dallas, fort worth, tyler and waco. planned parenthood of greater texas is 20 palestinians to serve more than 120,000 texans each year. mr. lambert joined planned parenthood in 2005 and brings more than 20 years of leadership or is in health care industry. finally, that brings us to our
3:52 pm
keynote speaker tonight. most of us remember the moment that sandra fluke entered the spotlight. as a law student at georgetown university, she testified about seven months ago before house democrats on the importance of requiring insurance plans to cover contraception. her remarks drew the attention of radio talkshow host rush limbaugh, who called her names that i will not dignify by repeating. that may be what is the well-known is that ms. fluke devoted her career to public interest advocacy. before attending georgetown, she created and led the new york city program to help bring quality services to victims that do not violent and human trafficking. she also cofounded a new york statewide coalition has successfully lobbied for legislation on teens and other victims with access to several orders of protection. ms. fluke recently graduated
3:53 pm
from georgetown school of law. she now spends her time speaking out on issues concerning women and health care access. her appearances have included speaking at the recent democratic national convention. let's welcome her to smu for what i'm sure will be a very lively discussion. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. i want to extend my thanks goes to bat for putting together this evening what is sure to be a fascinating discussion for myself included and thank you very much for the kind introduction, karen. now i like to make sure when i speak in front on it, it, not constantly disappointed. i like to begin with the caveat. if you come here to see housefly
3:54 pm
dimm person, you are probably going to be disappointed with the content of my discussion. [applause] i hope that you'll be disappointed with the content of my discussion. if you come away saying that was confirmed, i will have very much failed in my talk this evening. so lively indeed. so i thought i would begin by just laying out a few facts. part of what we are examining statements a discussion of how media covered this policy and some of the policy discovered and discussed earlier this year. and unfortunately, that coverage has been lacking in factual content and in some cases included some very intentional and specific distortions of this
3:55 pm
fax, not only regarding my personal life, but regarding the actual policy under debate. so that you begin by clearing up a few misconceptions. and i usually ask the audience to tell me what they think on this questions, but you're all getting off easy because of the bigger room, so you won't be cuevas. so first i'd like to just start with what i actually testified to. i did not testify about my sex life. i didn't actually testified then anyone sex life. i did not talk about my own inability to afford contraception. i did not say that i needed assistance affording it from taxpayers. it's been completely distorted, unfortunately. what i testified about was the needs of women on my campus who did have trouble affording contraception and the women who needed contraception for important health means other than preventing unintended pregnancy. specifically, i talked about a
3:56 pm
close friend of mine whose doctors prescribed or contraception to prevent this from growing on her. and i talked about the consequences when she was denied that coverage on her own private insurance that she was paying for and that after a few months, she was unable to afford to cover that on her own. and so, she had to have an surgically removed and has really had dire consequences for her ability to children in the future. so that is what i actually testified about and unfortunately that has been very much lost in the public conversation that has ensued. one of the biggest myths is that this is a policy that was about government funding of contraception or entitlement to government funding for health care were actually discussing private insurance that women pay for on their own, with a rounded out the bulls.
3:57 pm
i georgetown specifically, student insurance is covered entirely. there's no institutional money from the university involved at all. another misconception has been that this was about forcing churches to pay for contraception against their beliefs are your churches than houses of worship are completely exempted from this policy. it doesn't apply to them and never did. were the conversation has more than a debate is around the vicious lee affiliated universities and nonprofits. we can't do what i think is really rather brilliant policy and that is that the women who were attending those schools or working as nonprofits are able to have their own premium dollars go towards the contraception they are choosing to use individually and doctors are prescribing for them, but at the restitution money is not going toward that service if
3:58 pm
they have objections to it. to me that seems like a really brilliant physician to land on that meets the concerns of those involved. another misconception i've been coming in now, whether this is about criminalizing contraception are not. this particular policy is actually not about criminalizing contraception. but i do think it is important to realize that right now and 2012, they are being introduced in state legislatures across the country and in congress, that would have that effect. so-called personhood initiatives would criminalize certain types of contraception as well as certain aspects of in vitro fertilization. the couples that are reached productively challenged in order to conceive a child. there also were proposals that would've allowed employers to determine whether or not to cover margins they contraception regardless -- i'm sorry, not
3:59 pm
just emergency contraception, all contraception regardless whether they were a religious institution. so if you worked for a fast food joint in your employer didn't believe in contraception, they could remove fat from insurance. this actually was and just about contraception. it was about any medical service the employer didn't believe them for any reason. something like chemotherapy could be denied if the employer didn't believe in it. ..
4:00 pm
have had trouble affording contraception at some point. otherwise right now we are on a college campus, so many of you are able to access it at affordable prices to contraception. it can be much more expensive on the private market you don't have insurance coverage. the center for american progress funds on contraception cost as much as $960 per year and when you add to the department prescription that can to get $1,210 per year. that's not affordable to all women in the country that is why
4:01 pm
did it for someone on a budget perhaps or for someone who is on a low-income family, so that's why we found that 29% of women in this country have used contraception and consistently in order to try to save money. inconsistent use is a really bad idea of. [laughter] that is in the choice we want them to be making. so, having said all that, there's been so much emphasis put on whether or not this is government money and i do think it's important to know this policy was not about government funding and contraception. but what if it had been? i personally think that is a good public policy be you have that as good public policy. we have title x for the
4:02 pm
contraception for the poorest women in the community the women i described in the statistics that have had trouble affording contraception and that program is under attack right now in texas which will be discussed publicly for but also in congress it's been built to completely eliminate title x and to be funded those services. that is incredibly hypocritical when we had the exact same legislators who are saying to women you don't need the affordable connect policy that requires your private insurance to cover contraception. and to then turn around and the fund the program that makes sure that it is affordable at that clinic leading women know where to turn the that is where the conversation that we are in but if you don't believe that women
4:03 pm
should have that assistance in affording contraception and you'd rather look at its from a truly he domestic standpoint, not hedonistic, but purely self-serving point of view. every dollar that we invest in access to contraception is $4 in spending we don't have to spend on the associated services. that is an incredible savings for us as a public and it's a smart public policy to invest money in that way rather than how to not address the reality of unintended pregnancies and if not address that and see what can be a difficult burden for a social safety net and public program for anyone opposed to abortion they made one smart way
4:04 pm
to prevent abortion and even if you are not opposed to it is a smart role to have not women face what is a difficult moment in the difficult decision. let's think about the consequences for the individual women of unintended pregnancies and highlights this. imagine for a moment that you find out tomorrow you're pregnant or your girlfriend or partner is pregnant that your daughter is a student is pregnant so think about the way in which that changes the option she may have for completing her education or fulfilling her dreams and career and i want to acknowledge there are many women and families who do continue to thrive and accomplish this
4:05 pm
person and have not planned very much and i applaud those families but it can be a difficult circumstance, and it can be a barrier for many women and that really rubs all of us of the potential that those women have to contribute amazing accomplishments and ideas to the public discourse if they are not able to hear from them because of these types of barriers. we have seen the last few decades access to contraception that made a difference to women being able to have careers and hold elected office and being able to be part of far larger public discourse and be the ceo and contribute to our society in that way. so it's important that we make that option available to all of the women in our community. we know that women that have trouble affording contraception disproportionately from
4:06 pm
low-income communities. this is common sense and they are also more likely to be women of color. so when we don't make sure that contraception is affordable to all women they are denying themselves that potential but denying hearing the perspective of the very specific communities. communities that i hope will be increasingly included in our public dialogue and that all of us need to be able to hear from to have that conversation as a society because that is what ultimately comes down to. it's a quality. not just equality on paper of saying that contraception is not illegal to you can be admitted to a university or hold a job but making that the quality into a reality, making sure that even if it is legal it's affordable, and making sure that even if you
4:07 pm
have the option to pursue that career you have the ability to control your own reproductions of that that career is realistic and something that can be achieved and not be repealed and that the rest of us can benefit from those contributions. so, with that i am looking forward to hearing from the other panelists. [applause] >> we are going to hear from each individual panelists now and we will start with charlie. i'm sorry. linda, excuse me. >> you made this decision earlier. [laughter] >> she works for the provost. >> there you go. [laughter] charlie is always asking me for money and i never give it to
4:08 pm
him. [laughter] >> well, they wanted me to start first because i'm going to talk about all well and i am going to bore you for five minutes, so that they only gave me five minutes because of that. but there are two ideas i really want to put forward here and in some ways i think i'm going to go to a point further than sandra did. i want to talk about the constitutional issue of privacy, and then i want to talk about how the constitution results of the struggle between freedom of religion and the right of government to regulate society even when such regulation may interfere with religion doctrine because those are two points that are important here. there was a time in this country between 1965 when it was okay for the state to outlaw the use of contraceptions by married couples. several states had been for
4:09 pm
years. they were on the books lingering on the books for years and finally the supreme court in griswold versus connecticut said it was unconstitutional to prohibit married people from using contraception is in the privacy of their bedroom. does the constitution have a provision that says government shall not prohibit married people from using contraception in their bedroom? no, it does not. it does have something called due process and within due process the court eventually found that there was a right of privacy. and for my libertarian friends in the crowd really means something you have been saying for years which is the government needs to get out of our lives to the extent possible, and we don't want -- having the government regulate what we do with our marital sexuality. so, griswold said a marker that then the court used for example to see the government can also regulate and additional
4:10 pm
contraception. but beyond this idea is the idea that the government cannot control the procreation. is their anything more than enough money to having the government, to have politicians control procreation? i know many of us have heard about the stories in china with one child rules, and abortion is being used in order when they finally the child as a female we decide what to do it our bodies in terms of procreation is a dangerous concept the supreme court has recognized. so we came back from the legal analysis for a while and think about why did the supreme court to that? why did it decide that within the idea that the constitution was destroyed and liberty and the reason was its core value why we were founded as a country which is the want to protect individual rights to the extent that we can. in the system of government and
4:11 pm
rules it's hard to do that but we have to have limits, and the court decided those limits existed in the area of procreation. those core values of liberty are allowing us to fulfill our goal as human beings in terms of having a family or not having a family are as core to this country as concept of religious freedom and i believe those are corps also so it's not fair to have this argument posed as we as a country cannot sit on religious freedom by allowing people access to the right to control their procreation. these are core equal values and what has been done is the argument has been made over and over again and has to do with religious freedom and no one wants to turn on that ground. i certainly don't. i want all of us to be able to believe and the things we want to believe in. and i don't really want the government regulating that
4:12 pm
either. so, but it's not just about religious freedom it is also about human freedom and human dignity. now, the other point to make is when they talk about procreation and freedom and about a woman's right to control her body, they talked hugely spiritual terms and it's interesting that it did and the last important abortion decision this is what the court said about a woman's right to choose an appropriate. the lardy of the woman is at stake in the sense that she is in the human condition and so unique to the law the mother that carries the child to full term is subject to anxiety, physical constraint and japan she must bear. her suffering is intimate and personal for the state to insist without more upon its own vision
4:13 pm
of a woman's role. the destiny of the woman must be shipped to a large extent on her conception of her spiritual the imperatives and place in society so it is with the court views how we should view a woman's decision making process and to the extent president obama has engaged in a compromise on this issue i would challenge him on perhaps equal protection grounds of the why would have to extend president for those out there. i know it's not exactly on the point and on due process grounds and yes i know all the other cases were about government actually forbidding it. but there is a core of their that recognizes liberty and the last point i want to make is what do we do when the person has religious disagreements with government activity? what i'm going to say here is although it is private insurance, the affordable care
4:14 pm
act, does require employers to have this insurance. so in some ways it is government. although the government is not funding it, we are and insurance companies are. there is a system that has been created by the government. so, can the government do this? cannot tread on our religious liberty squawks the last important case in this arena was employment division versus smith, and it deals with dod. there is an indian and native american group in the state of washington who smokes as a part of the religious ritual. and honest to god sincere belief not made up to get high on saturday night. and the court would ask whether or not a person who did smoke the peyote who couldn't get a job was being discriminated against based on his religious practices and the government interfering in freedom of religion and the supreme court said no, the government was not coming into the author of that
4:15 pm
opinion was antonin scalia. and scalia said when the free exercise clause -- we have the right to exercise our religious beliefs cannot be used to challenge the law of general applicability so if it is passed without regard to anybody's religion, then it happens to affect a religion which we didn't anticipate. it's not unconstitutional. stephen continue that further, a famous case involving the ramesh committee try to get out of social security taxes saying we take care of our old. we don't need government help. of course the government has the right to pass its regulation and has the right to ask you to follow it and then a great case, bob jones university 18 tax-exempt status as a university and was denied by the irs because bob jones university would now allow african-americans into its
4:16 pm
campus or african-americans they changed that and then they wouldn't let them date anybody but african-americans and they said that is our religious beliefs and we shouldn't be denied tax exemption because of our religious beliefs, the government shouldn't be allowed that power over us and the supreme court said too bad, you lose. the government can deny you tax-exempt status. even though it does involve your religious beliefs because there are some rules for the civil society and secular society and we are found on the principle that we get to have a organized non-chaotic government even if it does infringe on the religious belief as long as we are not targetting a religion a lot of what is going on with this birth control argument that the churches are wanting from the government have constitutional implications and with that i'm going to turn over
4:17 pm
to charlie who knows about that much more than i do. [applause] i don't know a darn thing about law. [applause] i and addressing this issue of women's economic rights to the right of contraceptive health care coverage in the light of the demands of religious liberty. so, some of the things we've talked about. in my judgment it's been understood in this country has been pointed out it's important but it can conflict with other rights. so therefore i also distinguish between religious liberty and the very strict and core cents with the religion says is its own adherence to shut to and
4:18 pm
here there are very few restrictions that can be replaced. if your religion calls for you to practice child sacrifice, i think somebody has a right to call the cops. but, and here i might disagree with linda, i think the state should not interfere in any way to prevent native americans from using peyote in their ritual, and even though the court in her favor and against the leah -- [laughter] agreed with that, a few years later the light is states passed a referee should act 97-2 to oppose that decision. >> i just want to add that justice scalia once compared me. [laughter] >> are you bragging or complaining? [laughter]
4:19 pm
>> linda and i are old friends. the religious freedom restoration act was a joint sponsored by two people the most liberal person in the senate and the most conservative, ted kennedy of massachusetts and orrin hatch of utah but the court got the last word in. anyway, so i have been very upset by some of the people even in this country but even in germany putting restrictions on religious that practice male circumcision. i just think that is atrocious. there's the more extensive concept of religious liberty preferred not to the practices of the religion or the church for its own adherence but church or religious organizations that have employees that do not belong to their religion.
4:20 pm
i will speak from the roman catholic perspective with regard to catholic institutions such as hospitals and colleges and in terms of providing contraceptive health care, contraceptive health care insurance for its employees. this obviously has come to the floor in the light of the reaction of the u.s. catholic of bishops to the obama administration rules and the affordable health care act for contraceptive coverage in such cases. parenthetically, and this is the relevant in the room, both catholics disagree with the school teaching on contraception. >> i am one of those catholics. [laughter] in this case the institution i believe still has religious freedom, but other parties are involved and they have their
4:21 pm
freedoms, too, their religious freedom, in addition these catholic institutions receive government funding for their operations. so, you have here attention of these different conflicting rights going on here. the rules proposed by the obama administration first say that the church institutions had to provide contraceptive health care insurance for their and please. not only the u.s. catholic bishops, but many other catholics and many other proponents and religious liberty oppose the obama administration and regulation they then propose a compromise that such employees would be covered for contraception but the institution wouldn't have to pay for it. they call that a brilliant solution as i recall in her, or in many ways i think it was here is a concept to the conflict
4:22 pm
with rights how to solve it to keep everybody happy. no compromise is perfect by definition, but nonetheless, it seems to me this was an idea way to handle the situation. unfortunately, the united states bishops failed to go along with it and it posted in the name of religious freedom. and as they say, i think that they have forgotten the rights on their people. so, i think that compromise is an idea way to solve these issues. it has been done in the past. it hasn't always been done and let's face it, the whole political spectrum today for the black-and-white is unwilling to compromise. so, it's always going to be hard to work out. we have a fascinating case that arose in san francisco in 1966 when the city of san francisco said it would not fund social-service agencies,
4:23 pm
including catholic charities that did not provide health care benefits to domestic partners. the catholic archbishop of san francisco had no liberal heat. he wound up succeeding as the head of the congregation for the head of the freight. they allow insured employees to does it make any one legally domicile in their residence as a health care beneficiary by a close friend or gay and lesbian partner. the archbishop argued that the catholic church was always in favor of increasing health care insurance coverage of this was the way to do it. even though we would be this other factors involved. so, in my judgment the second set of rules in the obama administration proposes a compromise which in its own way
4:24 pm
tries to respect the freedom and the rights of all of the parties involved. >> thank you. [applause] thank you and good evening. i am here representing more than 120,000 women who live paycheck to paycheck and struggle to get by, who are on a 75 in the height of traffic with their check engine light on at their child being taken care of by a neighbor or friend and they couldn't be here tonight in front of you. one in five women in the united states have been to planned parenthood in her life. 95% of services or birth control provision. sexually transmitted infections, breast and cervical cancer screenings. we operate 23 health centers from dallas to fort worth throughout texas including rural communities like paris and waco
4:25 pm
down to the state capitol in austin to read our average client is 20 to 35-years-old. employees are in school like many of you have as little or no health insurance. planned parenthood is often their only health care providers and other medical home. to keep the women in the room, i might have a story to share. the ibm is a registered nurse who had to leave her job to care for her sick mother. she felt a lump in her breast and didn't have health insurance so she came to planned parenthood. she wrote to me and said planned parenthood helped me when i couldn't get it anywhere else. no one else would help me. they sent me for a mammogram, sonogram, biopsy and the surgeon said i needed to start chemotherapy immediately. that i was in stage 3 breast cancer. i am now cancer free and i am anticipating going back to work part time soon. i don't know where i would be without planned parenthood.
4:26 pm
in 2011 our state legislature cut access to breast health exams, birth control, pap smears by poor than two-thirds. they stripped $73 million from 111 million-dollar budget. they also implemented a priority system, specifically wanting to eliminate planned parenthood as a provider. because of this, 60 health centers closed across the state of which only 12 were planned parenthood. none of them provided safe legal abortion care. all of them were exclusively preventive health care. here in north texas we closed five centers. and where i lose sleep at night is knowing in those centers we diagnose more than seven positive cancers last year including individuals like ghanian and in many of the communities like waco we are the only provider of women's health care program services. there are other providers, fewer
4:27 pm
than five patience when we see more than 2,000. an estimated 160,000 women a year will lose care because of the cuts to the title ten of funding in texas. they cut 73 million cuts will cost the state more than 231 million in unnecessary health care costs. in the state where 56% of the birth is paid for bye taxpayers to the tune of $2.7 billion. of the women's health program is also under attack. texas enacted new regulations that were not allowed for the abortion providers or organizations to promote abortion to participate in the women's health program. the federal government notified texas that this was not within the guidelines of the federal funding and they would remove the 90% match. and that was correct, 90%. 90 on the tens and match. the women's health programs saved more than $40 million a year in texas. the department of state health services estimates that it costs
4:28 pm
$240 to insure a wollman -- ensure that a woman gets an annual exam, birth control and more than $16,000 for a woman to have medicaid, prenatal and delivery costs in the first year of care. if this regulation stands, more than 130,000 women will be affected and can possibly go without health care. planned parenthood in texas serves almost half of the women in the program. yet we account for 2% of the providers. our governor has made it a point to write op-eds. they include laboratories and doctors' offices, the reality and the fact that planned parenthood serves more than 50,000 women's health program clients. community health centers provide very much needed care, provide 10,000 patients with a medical home. but to offset the loss of planned parenthood as a provider we would have to expand the
4:29 pm
community health centers in the state buy nearly fivefold which is nearly impossible to do overnight. why are we standing strong? more than a quarter of women are uninsured. texas has one of the highest rates of cervical cancer in the country. as i said before, 56% of births in the state are paid for bye taxpayers. and we believe that investing in birth control is not only fiscally responsible, but helps create safe and healthy families every 1 dollar paid in contraceptive services prevent $4 in unnecessary costs as sandra pointed out to beat texas politicians are spending more money to see fewer women, and it's abhorrent. the seed texas turned its back on women and basic preventive women's health care. i would love to share another story. ..
4:30 pm
>> then we will open up the questions to you guys in the audience. but it seems to me that this kind of boy hillsdown to a few key questions, in a way. that is, what wall sheave federal, state, and local government play in these issues? you guys have to rest on this. and how much control should government have, what should it pay for, and largest of? >> that is a big question.
4:31 pm
>> it is. >> anyone want to? [laughter] >> when i take the white house -- [laughter] [applause] >> i think that we should not look at it in terms of where the government begins and ends. i think that we are saddled with an insurance system in this country because of what happened after world war ii. insurance systems provide health care. other countries don't have that. to the extent we do. even countries that do allow it. we have this insurance system, and the government's reasonable job is to make sure that the insurance system allows enough access so that people can be covered.
4:32 pm
all these years they have been overcharging for administrative costs. and so insurance companies now will regulate what is a reasonable amount of money to charge a provider. there it -- there are always problems. as i tell my students in constitutional law, this country is a work in progress. sometimes the government would go too far. i'm not in favor of excessive government involvement in my life. sometimes private industry will go too far in terms of wanting to make it all about how much profit they make and will rein in an. health care is not something that should be guided solely by the bottom line.
4:33 pm
so i think the government has a role, and we have to keep all watch boxes in view of how much we give them. >> i would add to that that birth control access should be a non-partisan issue, as many of you probably know president nixon signed saddle ten family planning funding into law. it was a republican value for government intrusion and could fiscal conservatism. $1 invested saves $4 in unnecessary costs. and as we know today, social ideology is forcing some of our politicians to be more socially conservative and fiscally responsible because they recognize this is just good public health. >> okay. i think, you know -- i'm sorry. >> go ahead. >> i get a little nervous about some of these responses. this, again, is a tension between the government and the individual.
4:34 pm
and i can practically agree with everything, but not absolutely. the government at times has to force employers to pay eight of the wage. the government has to force big companies not to pollute. the government has a lot of things that the government has to do, so you live again with this kind of attention. i can agree on these issues, but be very careful. where i might disagree is, i think the best solution in the united states for health care is a single payer system. [applause] i have always said to my opponent, i never heard anybody when they're giving airplanes they get government off my back. [applause]
4:35 pm
>> it does bring us to an interesting point. many of the lawsuits filed around this regulation have argued things like rather than regulating private insurance to recover should just provide contraception directly through taxpayer funding which is in some respects less conservative than the one that we were at. yet the lawsuits are filed by conservative organizations. >> i wanted to clarify one thing, which i think speaks to what charlie was to sank. we discussed earlier the religious freedom restoration act which was the piece of legislation that addressed the supreme court case that we discussed. if they're is a compelling enough interested in it is appropriate for the government to regulate in the wake. the question really comes to whether, frankly, the argument that i made or that can make is a compelling enough interest? if it is, then this is a regulation that stains.
4:36 pm
rita want anyone to go away thinking of regulation is unconstitutional or a violation of a federal statute. >> yes. [laughter] >> there are some cases that have not yet been decided, but i feel that they are going to turn out in the way that i discussed. >> probably. >> yet. [laughter] >> we talked a little bit about where there is room for compromise on some of these issues. what types of things to you think are negotiable? where can we reach a happy medium on some of these issues? [laughter] >> i believe that -- i can't speak to either extreme of either wing of ideology, but i think in the great middle i think most americans do not want government involved in our decisions, family decisions. i think that whether they want
4:37 pm
to pay tax payer dollars for my birth control, there would be disagreement about that. many people would be fine with that, given the cost of not having birth control. but i think in terms of having the government tell us whether we can use contraception, whether or not we can use our own premium to pay for contraception, i think most americans would agree with that. in fact, when you ask most americans whether they are in favor of having planned parenthood kinds of facilities available, a huge majority say yes. this is something sandra said about the media not being very careful. it is so easy to write a media story about whether or not you want your hard earned dollars to go for contraception, but most americans when they're asked to think about the process as all
4:38 pm
are in favor of some kind of world in which we want children, children we want and can afford. i think that is a standard variable we can all agree on. >> i would actually refreshing to be less about public policy being guided by compromise and more about having it be guided by science and by -- [applause] by accurate public policy analysis, by studies show things like what are the rewards that are reaped from investment in public funding of contraception or in having a view of the insured as a society and what as a society we gain from that. what of the consequences if we don't? if it has been very disappointing to see the ways in which over the last few years science is really being pushed out of some much of our legislative process.
4:39 pm
there are bills that have been enacted across the country requiring medical providers to give statements to women who are coming for services, frequently abortion services that are based on the ranchers science. and that is a scary moment, regardless of how you feel about abortion and what your personal legal police are up at to what to require medical professionals to the mislead their patience is not where we should be as a country, and that in those type of scientific facts and accurate public policy analyses should be given much more credence in our political and government process that our ideology. [applause] >> i think it is fair to ask this question. i received some e-mails from physicians and others to say that they don't see that birth control pill as the magic bullet
4:40 pm
that every once thinks it is. it is actually, as the list of reasons for, which include studies of medical risk associated with the pill or not solving medical issues and that is being prescribed for. essentially it boils down to that it was not seen as a preventative health measure. i just wanted -- the panel should weigh in on what you think. >> as a medical provider we follow the best of science, so much to sandra's statement about separating science from ideology , we follow the american college of obstetrics and and ecology, the american academy of family physicians, and we look to the best physicians and science nationally. we recognize that not only the 99 percent of women in the united states use birth control at some point, it is also 98 percent effective and approved by our federal drug administration, the fda. so we recognize that as basic
4:41 pm
preventive birth control, something that is absolutely important to access. what i would say is there are physicians among ask who are more ideologically sound then following the size of the practice. i have met them, and that try to meet with them. it's your last question focus on compromise. science and ideology, science and religion will never come 100 percent together. we base everything on medical facts and on evidence based medicine versus the spirituality and ideology. it is my belief that there is room for compromise, that we cannot look toward improving health outcomes of communities like and the mortality rates, women especially here so we have a very large infant mortality rate issue, and none of the causes is a sexually transmitted infection. well, by stripping away 60 health centers that provide
4:42 pm
testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, it's not going to help the infant mortality rate. and restricting women from accessing birth control is not going to prevent the need for abortion. >> you know, i am sure that you cannot watch tv during the news hours for more than five minutes without saying a viagra commercial. and it and people don't watch tv news. [applause] so when you do you hear all of the risks. i am wondering, they going to stop providing viagra on these health plans? or -- [applause] or -- a sister is in town. you're watching tv. a long list of horribles. what are is that? never want to take that drug. your growth for both men.
4:43 pm
and i'm wondering if they're going to stop covering that because there are risks involved. [applause] >> i want to agree with linda, but not the viagra. [laughter] >> science tells us there are some risks with the birth control pill, but there are risks with everything. and therefore it you just have to make up your decision. unfortunately so many of those are written by lawyers. [laughter] never going to give me any money to. [laughter] >> i think that it is important to know about the risks, and that is why women need to talk with medical professionals in making their choices. also one of the reasons why women need to be allowed to have choices about which option of
4:44 pm
contraception works for them. [applause] >> not every option is going to be right for an individual woman based on the rest of her medical history and health care, and that is why i find it so problematic when we see these letters to the editor and what have you saying anyone can afford $9 a month. first of all, not anyone can. secondly, not every woman can take $9 a month contraception and have it meet her medical needs. this is medicine. we don't go to the bargain basement. we go to the doctor. [applause] >> my 17 year old daughter is in the audience tonight. i have asked. what lessons did you think can women and girls should take away from this focus?
4:45 pm
and how can they become in powered by this discussion? >> i thought of what about young women over the last few months. there were actually one of the main reasons that i took some of the positions and stands that i did. when i originally was verbally attacked in the media i considered whether to, you know, step back and save my family and my personal friends and community a lot of heartache in the process. and one of the reasons that i did not do that, that i continue to speak out and engage publicly regardless of that type of criticism was because i wanted to make sure that young girls did not see what had happened as a cautionary tale and did not come away from the situation thinking and not going to raise my hand and express opinions in civics class, and they're never
4:46 pm
going to participate in public dialogue or engage in the political process because, my god, look what happened to her. i don't want that to happen to me on the playground. i don't want that to happen to me when i'm older. we will make my career choices to avoid that. i really tried to conduct myself in a way that provide an example to young women that you can survive this. you are strong enough. people we will stand with you and call out this type of inappropriate rhetoric for what it is and that it is not a reason to turn away from being involved in our civic process and government. [inaudible conversations] >> but we think there is another message that we can take away from not just how i was treated, and how all of it here use
4:47 pm
contraception were treated, but from of that dialogue that we are having with the policies. we absolutely need male legislators and elected officials to prioritize women's health and understand and care about these issues. men like them and we have on this panel tonight. we need more women in office. [applause] some of the members of congress are known to say, if women are not at the table, we are on the menu. that needs to change. so i really do hope that young women in college and high-school thinking about their career options and, i know many of us in those ideological years are thinking, how do i make a difference? how do i change things for the better? consider going into elected office as an option for how to do that engaging in this process
4:48 pm
as a way to have that kind of impact access to health care over the last few years. you can call that a war on what ever you want. the s in those numbers. one important way to change that is the only to vote based on it, speak out about this, run for office and talk about which issues we would rather see addressed by our government. >> i have to ask, did you plan to run for office at some point in time? [applause] >> just like a journalist as huge as me that. maybe someday. it is not what i am focused on right now. i have had folks suggest that to
4:49 pm
me. mostly because i would be a giant hypocrite if i sat here and told all of you that we needed more young women in office but said, no, not me. i've had enough. we will see possibly sunday, but it's not the focus of the moment. >> i vote for her. >> anybody here tonight that is now registered to vote, there are further registration cards. have your voice be heard. >> at this point i think that we would like to open it up to questions from the audience. if you would, as you go to the microphone there are a lot of people here who would like to get questions then. i ask that you keep your questions very concise and shorts of the we can get as many people to the microphone as possible. i jet it remind you.
4:50 pm
>> howdy. thank you for coming to speak with us. a really appreciate it. i'm a freshman year. he said this issue is not about government funding. i think that is kind of missing the point this is about $0.4 government coercion in regards to private organizations. forcing insurance companies to provide contraception. those companies will test those costs off on to the individual. not only will this be violating their religious aspect of it, by forcing them to give contraception. it's also pushing the cost of and the individual taxpayers to pay for those rising insurance costs. how do you justify that? >> a lot of misconceptions.
4:51 pm
i know that the institute and several other research institutions have verified that this will not increase the cost of the insurance payment for all of us. again, just on the use of taxpayers'. it does the result in the net cost increase. >> argue against social security? >> i don't think it's have been treated in the first place. forcing you to pay another five years. >> seriously. we live in a society. we live in the community. one of the issues about all we hear about in terms, not just a birth control, but anything is why should you have to pay for something you don't want to.
4:52 pm
i grew up during the vietnam era, and that is what my compatriots with sake. lush and i pay for obama ee thin? the answer is because we as society passed a law. and so i and this and that you don't want to do it. a lot of things i don't want to pay for, but i do. the answer is what is going on which is both the bums out. if you don't like the love you have. >> okay. thank you. next question please. >> hello. i came to america 25 years ago. i love in america we have liberty and freedom to have this type of discussion. one of the minority who totally disagree with what i heard tonight. i want to tell you that women are already dying in the emergency rooms from bust abortions. performed some of those abortions with --. a science test, not life begins
4:53 pm
at conception. you're talking about the right of women. what about the right of those women and those men who are inside of that mothers will? because you may say that it is my body to my choice, but those in the sense to not have the right to defend themselves, so i just come here to express my voice as many others, i'm a minority here. i know that, but most iraqis believe in the right to live in the right of liberty in the right of freedom. >> excuse me. >> the question i have for you is, what do you think about the botched abortions being performed in many clinics, including planned parenthood? >> excuse me, ma'am. do you have a specific question? >> as the question. what do you feel about the botched abortions that are happening? women are dying because these abortions are being performed in clinics like planned parenthood. >> thank you.
4:54 pm
>> the way i would answer that question, your scientific fact is actually wrong. if you look for the american college of obstetrics and gynecology there is a different medical facts and evidence based medicine that will explain that to you, and a happy to give you the site in versa you know where to go. in relation to the complexity of abortion services, we understand that it is a complex topic. it is our belief that we don't walk in the shoes of the women who walk into our health centers across the country. only they know the situation there in. we provide medically accurate information. we encouraged them to look to their family to much of their friend, to their social service organizations who can help them make the decision that is right for them, and we know that abortion is safe and legal in the united states, and one of our aspects of our mission is to insure that women have safe, legal access to all services
4:55 pm
that they believe that they need. [applause] >> i don't know where she went, but let me say i can feel the pain in your voice, and they understand that. i think that my view of when life begins does not match yours . add g not discount that you have strong feelings about that. this is a very hard issue. it is an issue in which our religious and spiritual views can be the -- gang clash when there is no way i can convince you that life doesn't begin at conception, and there's no way you can convince me that it does the problem is, we don't respect that fact and when we come to hate people disagree with us. the wonderful glory of the united states is that we can live together. i really want that to happen. [applause]
4:56 pm
>> hi. the entire premise of this event has been a women's health care. you also mentioned risks and have there are risk factors with birth control. i would just ask you if you are aware of a. >> article -- mail. excuse me. thank you for correcting me on the pronunciation. the mayo clinic. it is very well-respected. i'm sure you know. it released an article in october of 2006 saying women who were on oral contraceptives before their first full term pregnancy increased their risk of breast cancer by 44%. and, you talk about risk factors and weighing them. you talk about science and health. is this really something that the government should be
4:57 pm
subsidizing? i encourage everyone to googol mayo clinic and read the articles. >> again. we looked toward evidence based madison. nationwide it has been proven that breath control is 98 percent effective when used consistently. and it is approved by our fda and has been for many, many decades. so the 99 percent of women in the room who remain healthy for re reasons because birth control does not just prevent births, it also helps individuals with a very insists, hormone levels and women. there are many reasons to use birth control other than to just prevent a pregnancy. back-to-back. >> could i just add one thing. you have to be careful.
4:58 pm
the mayo clinic did not say that someone associated with the mayo clinic said that. >> is published. >> we read an article or speak somewhere. that doesn't agree with us. [laughter] >> also been repeated studies that show that use of contraception reduces many other forms of cancer as well. so again these are medical decisions for an individual woman to make whether doctor with the benefit of all of those [applause] >> hi. i want to thank you for coming. my question is a little unlike my predecessor. we have been talking a lot about the goal of plurality in the government and voices being
4:59 pm
heard. a recent study was posted about how women are in a male-dominated society. when polly integrity is inconsistent applied to women about simultaneously rendering the bodies both hyper visible and invisible to morale is it the fight? how the law helps this. a fundamental dissidents within the application of the law. how can we use that to assist us? >> at think one of the things that you're pointing to is the way in which women's health and reproductive health our friend as different from the rest of health care. >> exactly. >> that is disconcerting that even from advocates of women's health care access we hear so much about this is an issue that should be important to women and women should vote on this and be concerned about this.
5:00 pm
5:01 pm
5:02 pm
5:03 pm
5:04 pm
5:05 pm
5:06 pm
5:07 pm
5:08 pm
5:09 pm
5:10 pm
5:11 pm
5:12 pm
5:13 pm
5:14 pm
5:15 pm
5:16 pm
5:17 pm
5:18 pm
5:19 pm
5:20 pm
5:21 pm
5:22 pm
5:23 pm
5:24 pm
5:25 pm
5:26 pm
5:27 pm
5:28 pm
5:29 pm
5:30 pm
5:31 pm
5:32 pm
5:33 pm
5:34 pm
5:35 pm
5:36 pm
5:37 pm
5:38 pm
5:39 pm
5:40 pm
5:41 pm
5:42 pm
5:43 pm
5:44 pm
5:45 pm
5:46 pm
5:47 pm
5:48 pm
5:49 pm
5:50 pm
5:51 pm
5:52 pm
5:53 pm
5:54 pm
5:55 pm
5:56 pm
5:57 pm
5:58 pm
5:59 pm
6:00 pm
6:01 pm
6:02 pm
6:03 pm
6:04 pm
6:05 pm
6:06 pm
6:07 pm
6:08 pm
6:09 pm
6:10 pm
6:11 pm
6:12 pm
6:13 pm
6:14 pm
6:15 pm
6:16 pm
6:17 pm
6:18 pm
6:19 pm
6:20 pm
6:21 pm
6:22 pm
6:23 pm
6:24 pm
6:25 pm
6:26 pm
6:27 pm
6:28 pm
6:29 pm
6:30 pm
6:31 pm
6:32 pm
6:33 pm
6:34 pm
6:35 pm
6:36 pm
6:37 pm
6:38 pm
6:39 pm
6:40 pm
6:41 pm
6:42 pm
6:43 pm
6:44 pm
6:45 pm
6:46 pm
6:47 pm
6:48 pm
6:49 pm
6:50 pm
6:51 pm
6:52 pm
6:53 pm
6:54 pm
6:55 pm
6:56 pm
6:57 pm
6:58 pm
6:59 pm
7:00 pm
7:01 pm
7:02 pm
7:03 pm
7:04 pm
7:05 pm
7:06 pm
7:07 pm
7:08 pm
7:09 pm
7:10 pm
7:11 pm
7:12 pm
7:13 pm
7:14 pm
7:15 pm
7:16 pm
7:17 pm
7:18 pm
7:19 pm
7:20 pm
7:21 pm
7:22 pm
7:23 pm
7:24 pm
7:25 pm
7:26 pm
7:27 pm
7:28 pm
7:29 pm
7:30 pm
7:31 pm
7:32 pm
7:33 pm
7:34 pm
7:35 pm
7:36 pm
7:37 pm
7:38 pm
7:39 pm
7:40 pm
7:41 pm
7:42 pm
7:43 pm
7:44 pm
7:45 pm
7:46 pm
7:47 pm
7:48 pm
7:49 pm
7:50 pm
7:51 pm
7:52 pm
7:53 pm
7:54 pm
7:55 pm
7:56 pm
7:57 pm
7:58 pm
7:59 pm
8:00 pm
8:01 pm
8:02 pm
8:03 pm
8:04 pm
8:05 pm
8:06 pm
8:07 pm
8:08 pm
8:09 pm
8:10 pm
8:11 pm
8:12 pm
8:13 pm
8:14 pm
8:15 pm
8:16 pm
8:17 pm
8:18 pm
8:19 pm
8:20 pm
8:21 pm
8:22 pm
8:23 pm
8:24 pm
8:25 pm
8:26 pm
8:27 pm
8:28 pm
8:29 pm
8:30 pm
8:31 pm
8:32 pm
8:33 pm
8:34 pm
8:35 pm
8:36 pm
8:37 pm
8:38 pm
8:39 pm
8:40 pm
8:41 pm
8:42 pm
8:43 pm